The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-19 00:00:00

,PRIVY COUNCIL..(THIS. DAY.)
The L'ords °this MajistY's most 'lon. Privy. Council had
a meeting this morning. Thoie present were. Lord
'Bathurst, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Elltuborough, Lord
Tilairden, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice :of
the Common Pleas, the Lord
,Chief Baron, and Sir Chris-
topher Robinson. The subject under the consideration
Of theii Lordihips was an appeal, which has been part-
heard, relative to the distribution of the Deccan prize
money. The Attorney-General was in attendance upOn
their Lordships.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.-(THIS DAY.)

• HOUSE OF COMMONS.
• The House met at Twelve o'clock this morning.
: MADRAS REGISTRAR BILL.

- On the SP'E*AiElt taking his plice,
Sir JAMES MACINTOSH moved the Order of the
Day, for the second reading of the Madras Registrar Bill.
' On the motion' being put, '
Mr. ASTEI..L Moved that Counsel be called in.
The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Adam and Mr.
S,rjeatt Spankie were accordingly called to the bar of the
House.

The SPEAKER—Mr. Adam, for whom do you
appear?—Mr. Adam intimated that he appeared for the
East India Company.
To a similar question from the SPEAKER—Mr. Ser-
jeant Spankie also stated that he appeared for the East
India Company.

The SPEAKER—The Counsel Will attend whilst the
Bill is read a second time. •

The Bill was then read a second time; after which,
. .

Mr. Adam proceeded to address the House. The
Learned Counsel contended, that in case that House com-
pelled the East India Company to make good the defi-
ciencies occlsioned by the late Registrar of Madras, Mr.
Ricketts, which amounted to 50,0001., it would he sanc-
tioning as act of the greatest injustice, inasmuch as it
would be obliging the Company to appropriate that money
in their hands which ought to be applied to other purposes.
Mr. Ricketts, who had been appointed to the post of Re-
gistrar of Madras some years, had, in the exercise of the
duties of that office, come into possession of considerable
property, arising from the estates of deceased persons. The
Learned Counsel then went into a detail of the duties of
the office.

Mr. Sergeant Spankie followed on the same side.

Sir JAMES MACINTOSH moved that the Bill be
committed, and went into a general outline of its contents,
contending that the State was morally anl legally bound
to make compensation to the petitioners, and that it was of
the utmost importance to the due administration of justice
in India, that this question should be fully considered.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

COMMITTAL FOR. CONTEMPT.

A poor decrepid old man, of the name of Lye, living at
Northallerton, was brought up this morning in custody,
for the purpose of being turned over to the Fleet for con.
tempt, in not putting in his answer to the plaintiff's bill.
Mr. KINDERSLEY, who appeared as Counsel for the
plaintiff, stated that the prisoner had a very remote inte-
rest in time property in question, and it was for his own
benefit that he should put in his answer. The plaintiffs
had offered to have an answer drawn and prepared at their
own expence, and every means had been resorted to to in-
duce the prisoner to put it in ; but, from some cause or
other, he had declined doing so. The present proceeding
had therefore become necessary, the obstinacy of the pri-
soner putting an entire stop to the proceedings.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR. observed, that it was clear the
law on this subject required revision. A scene such as the
present ought not to take place in Court.
Mr. KINDERSLEY said he would converse with the pri-
soner in private, and represent to him the consequences of
his obstinacy; after which, with the permission of the
Court, he would mention the matter again.
The prisoner was then ordered to be brought up again
on Monday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

EX..PA RTE.RAINER V. THE CORPORATION OF RYE,

Mr. GunasErmoved for a rule to skew cause whya nton••
damus should not issue, calling upon the Mayor and Jurata
of the Corporation of Rye to summonq a general assembly,
for the purpose of admitting Rainer to the freedom of that
ancient port. The present application was made on behalf
of a gentleman who was a rate payer and resident in Rye,
and therefore according to a recent decision of a Commit-
tee of the House of Commoas (appointed to try the merits
of a contested election) was entitled to be admitted a free-
man, that Committee coming to a resolution that every
inhabitant of Rye, paying scot and lot, was entitled to
demand his freedom.

Mr. Justice BAILEY-D 3 your affidavits swear that the
Corporation are bound to admit a!1 persons paying scot
and lot ?

Mr. GURNEY said they did not state that fact.

Mr. Justice BAILEY --rou had better get them amended,
and then you can make another application to the Court.
Rule refused.

THE ICING V. NICHOL.

This was an indictment against the defendant for
perjury : it was tried at the last Spring Assizes, and a ver-
dict of guilty returned. The present application was to
reverse that judgment. It appeared that the defendant
had been arrested by a Sheriff's officer, and in an action
that was afterwards tried he swore that officer, at the
time of making the caption, clasped him round the body
with his arms. This was the assignment of perjury on
which the indictment was founded.

The COURT, after bearing a long argument, were of
opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to support
the conviction, and therefore ordered the judgment to be
reversed.

Lord Tenterden rose at eleven o'clock, to attend a
meeting of the Lords of the Privy Council. The Court
afterwards proceeded with the Crown Paper.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

SHEEN V. GARRETT.

An action bad been brought in this case founded on a
judgment, and the defendant, who, it appeared, had been a
bankrupt previously to the cause of action, had put in
three separate pleas, against the first of which a demurrer
had been entered.

This morning Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW was beard in sup-
port of the demurrer. The Learned Counsel maintained
that according to tht 126th clause of the 6th Geo. IV. which
slightly varied from the sth Geo. 11., the defendant was
hound in his plea distinctly to aver that the cause
of action had accrued before the bankruptcy ; and
that consequently the general terms in which the
present defendant's plea was worded, rendered that
plea altogether insufficient, regarded either in reference to
the statute or the common law. He, (the Learned
Counsel) believed there was not a tingle instance in the
reports in which a plea framed like the present bad been
admitted in any Court; and it could not be supposed that
the defendant Was ignorant of the proper course, seeing
that the subsequent pleas were perfectly conformal le to the
usual mode of proceeding in similar cares. The Statute
to which he had alluded, enacted, that every plea of a
like kind, should expressly state that the cause of action
had accrued previously to the bankruptcy, and also to
conclude with another plea. It was not eligible
for any one to make a plea partly in conformity with the
enactment of the Statute, and partly to the Common Law.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES, on the other side, contended that
the Statute did not require any particular form of words.
The difference between the original and the modern Statute
was, that the former made it compulsory on the part of
the person making a similar plea to state that the cause
of action had accrued before the bankruptcy, and the latter
left it to the choice of the party—in the first instance the
word used was " shall," in the other " may."
Mr. Justice PARKE wished to know if the plea was in-
tended as a general or a special one.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES said it was a general plea, but
contended that the Statute did not require any particular
form of wording it.

Mr. Justice i'anicE—ltut it was incumbent on you to
state that the cause of the action occurred before the
bankruptcy.
Mr. Sergeant LAVES submitted that the defend,nt had
substantially pleaded in accordance with the Statute, in-
asmuch as he stated that the judgment was previous to the
bankruptcy, and the judgment was, to all intents and
purposes, the cause of action.

The 6URT was of opinion that the plea was not good,
and therefore that the denim rer was, inasmuch as the de-
fendant had not used the words of the Statute, but much
more than was required, and that therefore the plea was
to be regarded either as a general or special one.
Judgment fur the plaintiff

FINE ARTs.—We have just seen a Litho-
graphic View of Westminster Abbey, and that unsightly
edifice which screens one of the finest portions of it from
the public eye—St. Margaret's Church. The sketch is
by Mr. O'Cormort, and is intended as the first of a series.
It possesses both elegance and correctness to recommend it.