The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-22 00:00:00

has beheld the mountain that was in labour bring
forth a mouse—and the people hare passed from
laughter to weeping at the prospect he has held
forth. The reductions in the public expenditure
amount on all the estimates to 1,031,98.514 and if
we are to take into the account the saving on the in-
terest of the Exchequer Bills and in the Revenue
Department, we shall be relieved to the extent of
1,300,0001.; that is to say, about a fifty-fifth of our
taxation; so that be who now pays to the amount
of fifty-five shillings, will, in future, be enabled to
satisfy the " tax-eaters" by tendering the sum of
fifty-four. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
however, conceive for a moment that this statement
will satisfy the country as to the wise policy, the
good intentions, or the ultimate success of the Ad-
ministration in which he holds so eminent a place,
and in which he takes so prominent a part ? No.
Weak and incompetent he may be, but he is not an
absolute fool. Many hours will not pass over his
head before he is satisfied that he has not misled a
single individual, either in or out of the honour-
able House. Will the Right Hon. Gentleman pre-
sume to say that nothing more can be done—that no
further saving can be effected ? lie will doubtless
be asked the question, and that immediately. We
shall wait for his answer before we again refer to the
subject.—Morning Journal.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fau. 20.
CASH V. TAYLOR.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for
68/. ss. purporting to have been accepted by the
defendant Thomas Taylor. The defence was, that
the acceptance was a forgery. On the part of the
plaintiff, who was the endorser of the bill, evidence
was given to show that the acceptance in the name
of the defendant had been signed by Alfred Tallent,
the drawer, with the defendant's authority. It ap-
peared that Alfred Tallent, who was a brother-in-
law of the defendant, had, on a former occasion,
made use of the defendant's name to a bill in favour
of a Mr. Stracey. That bill fell due in December,
1828, and was dishonoured. A prosecution for
forgery having beet► threatened, the defendant was
applied to to write to Mr. Stracey's attornies to say
that the bill would be paid. The defendant upon
that application authorized a brother of Alfred Tel-
lent to write to the attornies, and a letter was ac-
cordingly written in which it was stated that the de-
fendant " had long been in the habit of endorsing
bills for Mr. Alfred Tallent, and he had also given
him due authority to make use of his name in his
dealings with London houses, and he (the defen-
dant) would therefore take up the bill." At the
foot of this letter the defendant wrote a memoran-
dum stating that the letter was written in accord-
ance with his wishes, and he was ready to take up
the bill. This letter was relied on as evidence to
show that the bill in question (though dated sub-
sequently to the letter) had been accepted i❑ the
name of the defendant with his authority.
The Jury found for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 20.
BRIGLAND V. ARNOLD.
In this case, which was left unfinished when we
went to press on Saturday, the Jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 300/.