The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-29 00:00:00

THE CONVENTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sir,—..-In your Paper of the 19th inst., in the Report of
the proceedings of the Convention, it is stated that Mr.
Hugh Craig left Birmingham without leave of absence
being granted to him; and as this erroneous stat-ment has
been circulated to.the prejudice of Mr. Craig, I wish you
to inform those most interested in the matter that leave of
absence was applied for for Mr. Craig and Mr. Moir, and
was granted to them on the 15th inst.

I remain your obedient servant,
May 29, 1839. W. LOVETT.

CHANCERY CuURT-(THIS DAY).

ORME V. WRIGHT.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in
this case, affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls
with costs, which directed the redemption of a mortgage.

DU HOURMELIN V. SHELDON.

The arguments were concluded to-day in this part hoard
case.

The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed giving judgment.

IN RE GEARY'S PATENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied the remainder of
the morning with hearing the case in his Lordship's private
room.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

LOWRY V. FULTON.

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-
day in this case which was argued some time since. The
bill was filed by two of the children of a gentleman mimed
Lowry, who, previous to his death, resided in India, against
Mrs. Fulton, the widow of one of Mr. Lowry's exaltors,
for the purpose of compelling her to make good a large
sum of money which bad been lost in consequence of the
failure of a house in India, which bad acted as the agents
of the executors. His Honour, after going at some length
into the facts of the case, ordered the bill to be dismissed,
on the ground that there was no proof that Mr. Fulton bad
ever acted as executor.

BAIL COITRT.7(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. WII. JOHNSON.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, at the sitting of the Court this
morning, gave judgment in this case, which was argued
yesterday. He thought an improper construction had been
put upon the Act, and that the Magistrate had not juris..
diction to commit in this case, and therefore that the pri.
soner was entitled to be discharged, and directed him to
be discharged accordingly.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMERCIAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. WILSON moved for a rule to show why a mandamus
should not issue to the Commercial Railway Company,
commanding them to purchase Wilson's estate and interest
in certain mesnalges, shops, &c., and why, in the event
of their refusing to purchase, a jury should not be sum-
moned to ascertain the value.
The COURT granted the rule.

THE QUEEN V. LORD JOAN RUSSELL.
Mr. O'MALLEY Iswix, who moved for an attachment
against Lord John Russell two or three days ago, this
morning handed in several documents, which Mr. Justice
Coleridge said he would look into.

THE QUEEN V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Mr. O'MALLEY IRWIN then moved for an attachment
against the Attorney-Genera, for inducing Lord John
Russell to disobey the summons of the Court.—Rule refused.

THE QUEEN V. WILLIAM ADAMS.

Mr. KELLY moved for a writ of certiorari to bring up
the depositions against the defendant, who had been com-
mitted by the Magistrates of Norfolk for the manslaughter
of a person named Ostler, in order that he might be ad-
mitted to bail.—Rule granted.