The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-29 00:00:00

Tile Orangemen arc dislocated by the removal of their
head, and the wiser sort of the confraternity—the great
unsworn—those who joined the ranks, with a view to office
on a boakversmeut, are beginning to tire of playing the los-
ing game. The Orangemen will be thoroughly thrashed in
the city of Dublin, if they venture upon a contest. Ha-
milton will not come forward, it is said by his friends, if
they do not furnish him with money. West—much as his
agents may have received from the Carlton Club—is pretty
well mulcted already. As a man of prudence, he will look
about him before he plunges into all the horrors of a contested
election for the city of Dublin. With the Castle, the Police,
the Paving Board for him, at the last election, he was
beaten. Can he calculate upon such assistance now ? We
have known Mr. West, and, as a private gentleman, we
like him. And, although his toadies and backers may not
give us credit for this assertion, he will—we are con-
vinced—namely, that, for his own sake, we should not like
to see him a candidate for the city of Dublin at the en-

su:ng cicetion.
'They arc threatening James Grattan—they are fools.
There is another gentleman, for whom, though we have
had the honour of knowing his person, we have always
had a sort of regard—we mean Sir Charles Coote, of the
Queen's County. Three Sessions have now elapsed nearly
since he got into a false position. Should, however, Sir
Charles continue his Orange connections—should he still
persist in taking Mr. Chidley Coote into his councils—
should he lean to the present politics of Abbeylcix—should
he, at the commencement of a new reign, and a new era,
still continue to run in the. course prescribed by the
Orangemen, he will live to lament it.

With regard to Mr. Fitzpatrick's address, it is ever;
thing that the friends of Liberty and Ireland could wish.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Ju.vz 28.
WILSON, BART. V. lIOARE AND OTHERS.
This was an action of debt brought to recover the sum
of 3,900/. as fines upon the admission of fourteen trustees
to the trust estate of the Wells Charity, in the parish of
Hampstead. The plaintiff was the Lord of the Manor
within which the estate was situated, and had the right to
receive fines upon the admission of new trustees as tenants
of the manor. There were fourteen trustees of the estates,
but the plaintiff was only entitled to fines upon nine out of
that number. Those fines were calCidated in this manner.
For the first of the fourteen lives thus admitted tenants two
years' rent of the estate were to be paid ; for the second
half that amount ; for the third half of that half ; so de-
creasing by half at every fresh life. The rent of the trust
estate was 1,0001. a year, and the fine for the first life was,
therefore, claimed to be 2,000/, for the second 1,000/., for
the third .500/., for the fourth 2501., and for the fifth 1251.
When nine of the fourteen tires had dropped, the trus-
tees were entitled to demand that nine new lives should be
introduced, and in a case of that kind the remaining five
would surrender, for the purpose of re-admission, and be ad-
mitted with the new Trustees. In such a case the custom
of the manor was not to charge any fine on the re-admission
of the old Trustees ; and as they stood the first on the list
the larger fines might, if the admissions were properly
claimed, be always saved. In that way the fines never ex-
ceeded 125/. In the present instance twelve lives had been
suffered to drop without re-admission, and the remaining
Trustees, not knowing, perhaps, what would be the cinse-
quence of their conduct, resigned the trust. It therefore
became necessary that 14 new Trustees should be admitted.
The Lord consequently claimed a fine on each according to
what he alleged to be the custom of the manor. His claim
had at first been for 3,985/. 10s., but the case having been
before the Exchequer Chamber, that Court decided that
as there were fourteen lives to be inserted in the lease, and
as his fines could be claimed whenever any nine out of the
number had dropped, his chances of thus dropping were
increased by the increased number of lives, and he
must make a reduction on tbat account. The question of
the amount of the reduction had been submitted to an ac-
tuary, who stated it at somewhat about 43/. The plaintiff
had taken off the odd 85/. 10s., and he now claimed 3,900/.
The defendants insisted, first, that there was no clear proof
that the fines now demanded were warranted by law, or
were according to the custom of the manor ; and, secondly,
that if the first part of the principle of calculating the fines
was admitted the reduction ought to be much greater than
was stated, according to the agreement of the persons
named as trustees.
Evidence was called upon the points raised in the Case,
and the Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Juxr; 27.
EDENBOROUGH V. WRIGHTSON.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51/. 18s. 3d.,
for goods sold and delivered, brought by the plaintiff, who
was a manufacturer of lace and similar articles, carrying on
business in Milk-street, Cheapside, against the defendant,
a master mariner, and part owner of a vessel called the
Spanish Packet.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence,
and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
511. 18s. 3d.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, ✓uxr 23.
:N THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOHN ItAYNES

HAYWARD, ESQ.

In this case a point of practice of considerable impor-
tance arose. The Insolvent, whose debts, it was stated,
amounted to 10,0001., and who attributed his insolvency to
lame in racehorses and in the building of stables for them,
had bean removed by habeas corpus from Ilchester gaol,
to which prison he had renderell in discharge of his bail.
Mr. WooDRoFFE submitted that by the Act of Parlia-
ment no Insolvent could remove himself by virtue of this
writ unless the distance was within 20 miles of London.
Mr. Coox thought the word " behalf" materially qua-

lified the objection.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said the Act was imperative,
and he was ultimately ordered to remove himself back,
giving the creditors ten days' notice.