The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-08 00:00:00

, . . .
basinegs of a banker, and spoke Of him highly as 'A
man of inftrity in business.
Mr. J. Davidson; who said he was .riO .relation of
the Defendant's; for -he spelt hiS name differently,,
had known the Defendant between twenty and thirty
years; gave him'a good charader us a maxi upright
in his dealings.
Mr. Alexander Black•had known the Defendant
ten years; had known- him in the banking buSinesS,
and gave him a very good chara6ter.
Mr. Gilpin had known the Defendant 20 years,
and gave him a very good character. -
Mi. Huskisson,- of the Treasury, gave Mr. Davi-
son an excellent charatter, as far as he had known
him, which was a knowledge derived from his con-
duCt in the service of Government, while Mr. Jilts-
kisson was conneeted,•with its_ _ _

Mr. Robert Barclay was called to give the Defend-
ant a good character but being a quaker, he could
not be examined in a criminal case.

Mr. Jourdaine, an eminent merchant, had known
Mr.Davisou for 18 years, and gave him an excel-
lent charadter.

Mr. DALLAS said, there were many other wit-
nesses who could give evidence to the same effect.
It appeared further, that Mr. Davison, had, in the
course of his concerns with the Barrack Depart-
ment, sent in a supplemental account, stating errors
in his former account to the amount of t 5,u001.
&c. ; btu although his attention had been called to
the subject several titnec he never offered to take
off this chargenf 'commission upon the goods which
he'had sold himself, instead of buying them as an
agent.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL made an able reply;
and called for justice, in the name of the Public, to
deter public delinquents.
Lord ELLENBORoucti summed up the whole case,
and went through all•the evidence,• not because the
case was- difficult, but because, it was important to
the. Public in the first instance, who should be se-
cured from peculation ; and to the alendant in the
second, whose future prospects might- be.greatly af-
fetted by it in the event of his conviclion. It was
true he had an excellent charaCter„ but charaCter
was only useful to turn the scale where it hung in
balance. The Defendant's case claimed the atten-
tion of the Jury, but the interest of the public had at
least an equal claim on their attention. Having
recite&every I.vord of (he evidence,, and made suit-
able comments on the most material parts of it, he
left the case entirely to the Jury; who retired, and
after remaining•out of Court for about five minutes,
brought in, their VerdiCl—Guilty. •
The ATTORN EY•GENER AL, Mr. GARROW, Mr.•
ABBOT, and Mr. RiCAARDSON, were Counsel for
the Proecution. -

lit. DALLAS, Mr. GEORGE WILSON, Mr. HOL-
RoYb, and Mr. HARRISON, for the Defendant.
Mr. LITCHFIELD was Solicitor for the ProsectF-
tion, and Mr. R. WILSON for the Defendant.
The trial lasted from nine o'clock in the morning
till nearly half after seven in the evening:

DECEMBER 6.

CHENAUT V. BAYNES, KNT.

This was an action against the Wet Dock Com-
patty, charging them with haying taken into their
Ducks 275 puncheons •of brandy . belonging to the
Plaintiff, and with_ having kept it so negligently,
that the Plaintiff sustained a loss of 509 gallons, tittle .
being that deficiency in the quantity between the
period when the brandies were gauged by the Ex-
cise gaugers, and the delivery from the Docks. The
Plaintiff insisted that this deficiency was occasioned.
by pillage, and that the Dock Company being bound
to keep all merchandize secure and safe, were liable
to make reparation for the loss. The Dock Com-
pany, in their defence, endeavoured to show that
the deficiency arose from natural causes ; .first, that
the brandies were landed on their quays in hot wea-
titer, and consequently liable to evaporation from -
the rays of the sun; and, secondly, that the pun-
cheons being made of soft Hatuburgh timber, open,
and fitli of veins, the liquo7 had exuded through
the pores, and a great loss was sustained by leakage.
This last point was replied to, by saying, that if the
puncheonS were in• the condition stated, it was the •
duty of the Doek Company to have given notice of
the fad to the Plaintiff, and to have seen that they •
were properly coopered.. The Plaintiff, however,
was convinced that the imperfect state of the pun-
cheons was an after-thought, and it would be mon-
strous, it was said, if it were otherwise, as the Dock
Company had, charged the Plaintiff • between 2 and,
3001. for warehousing, coopering, and keeping safe
the brandies in question. Another proof of its being.
an after-thought was, that the deficiency in some
of the puncheons was ten, twelve, and thirteen gal-
lons, and in others only one; however, as there
might. be some loss by leakage, the Plaintiff was in-
clined to make an. allowance of one gallon in every
puncheon, and take .a verdict for the remaining loss.
This was considered to be a fair proposal by his
Lordship, who said, he wished the Wet D:ick Corn-
pules to understand, that they were bound to give
notice, to the merchants of the hnperfea state of
their puncheons and packages; to cooper and pre-
serve than, if necessary ; and, in short, to give
every requisite care and attention the merchandise in
their custody should require. The Jury. found, for
the Plaintiff for a, deficiency of 275 gallons, and the
duty, amounting, to 2201.

DOCTOR'S COMMONS, DEC. 7.

PEYTON V. PEYTON.

This was a suit of nullity of marriage, brought by
the Husband against his wife, by reason of minority.
From the libel produced,' it appeared that the parties
had been married for the period of ten years, and
that the marriage was solemnized under a licence
obtained on the oath of the husband, the Lady being
then only sixteen years of age.
The Court (Sir WILLIAM SCOTT) after hearing
the learned Civilians on the one side and the other,
'and recapitulatit►g the evidence, was of opinion, that
the same did not amount to sufficient proof to• war-
rant the Court ih coming to the conclusion,- that con-
sent had not been- given on the Fart of the father;
and accordingly dismissed the parties.