The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The House sat on Scotch Appeals to-day.

The Lords present were the LOAD CHANCELLOR, the
Earl of ELnorr, Lords ROSLYN, JERSEY, and STRAD-
BROOM

STEWART V. FULLARTON.

This case came before their Lordships, upon appeal
from the Court of Session, the question in which relates
to a deed of entail executed by a gentleman of the name of
Murray, of Blackburrow. The case involved many points
of dry Scotch law, possessing not the slightest public inte-
rest.

The SOLICITOR.GEIIERAL was addressing the House
on the part of the appellants when we left.

ROLLS COURT.
The AfASTER of the Rorts took causes to-day, none of
which possessed the slightest public importance.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

The Court took pleas, demurrers, exceptions, and for-
:her directions to-day.

MACKWORTR V. MARSHALL.

The bill in this cage was filed by the plaintiff, a son of
Sir Dighy Mackworth, the banker, against the defendant,
for a discovery as to certain acceptances, which the plain-
tiff alleged had been obtained from him by the defendant
under false pretences.
About six. months ago, the plaintiff, a young man,
23 years of age, returned from Oxford, where, though
liberally supplied with every thing by his father, he had
created several debts. On his arrival in London, being in
want of money, his attention was attracted by an adver-
tiwement in the Times newspaper, from parties professing
to lend money, and after several negociations with a per-
son of the name of Burn, he was introduced to the de-
fendant Marshall, to whom he gave several blank accep
tances, some of which were afterwards filled up by Mar-
shall for large amounts, and nsgociated. To the bill
which asked a discovery as to those acceptances, the de-
fendant had put in a plea, alleging that as he had become
a bankrupt he could not be made a party to the suit, nor
could he be called upon to give any account of the ac-
ceptances.
Mr. RUSSELL appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
WAxerrecn for the defendant.

The FILE-CliwricELLoft considered this a most grass
and fraudulent transaction, and ordered the plea to be
overruled.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
PROSECUTIONS AGAINST THE MORNING JOURNAL.

JUDGMENT.

THE KING •LEXANDER, ISAACSOX, AND 'MARSDEN.

Mr. HUMPHREY obtained permission, on the part of Mr.
Isaacson, to have his affidavit read, which was in part
before the Court on Thursday last. He stated that Mr.
Isaacson was a clergyman of the Church of England,
holding the living of St. Paul's, Demerara, that he had
arrived here last year on a leave of absence, which leave
had now expired; that in consequence of his having been
the author of a translation of Bishop Jewell's Apology for
the Church of England, and having dedicated that work
to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, his Grace had pro-
cured him that situation. That he had hoped the
Court would not have called him up for judgment,
hut that having found last Thursday their Lordships would
not dispense with punishment upon him, he had this
morning made his appearance, and trusted be should re-
ceive the most lenient sentence consistent with justice. His
affidavit stated that he had expended upwards of 100/. in
preparing to return with his family to Demerara, and
should he be now prevented, it would cause him and his
family to sustain irreparable loss. Having considered the
Established Church in danger, and finding the Morning
Journal, when he came to this country, to be almost the
only Paper that advocated what he thought likely to pro-
tect it, ho had unfortunately connected himself with it as
a proprietor ; but he regretted exceedingly the situation
into which his zeal had led him. lie was totally unable
to pay a heavy fine. He was not the author of the letter
that had appeared under the name r,f Croshie ; on the
contrary, he had seen the writer of it, who had acknow-
ledged to him that he was the writer, and that he had
written to the Duke of Wellington apprising him of that
fact before the trial of the informations took place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the conduct of
Mr. Isaacson to have been most irregular, but still having
appeared to-day he consented to waive the consideration of
it. He could not, however, concede that there was any
thing in Mr. Isaacson's situation that entitled him to
a palliation of punishment. It was not because he was a
Clergyman, and had connected himself with this Paper
after two of the informations had been filed, that he was
the less guilty ; on the contrary, if he were a man of supe-
rior education and good moral feeling he ought to have
above all things avoided connection with so calumniating
a medium. With respect to the point Mr. Alexander had
made of oppression on the part of the Officers of the
Crown, at the Stamp-office, he had got an affidavit de-
tailing the whole of that transaction, which if the Court
wished, was ready to be read.
Mr. HUMPHREY considered this irregular, but if the
Court thought the usual rule ought to be departed from in
this case, he had no objection to make.
Mr. Justice BAILEY intimated that the Court had con-
sidered this se strong a point as to feel it right to require
the suits both of caveat and extent to be laid before them,
that all doubt on the question should be removed. The
writs were then before the Court. Upon this the affidmrit
was withdrawn. -