The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-16 00:00:00

we refer, Was the right to literal guellOttomen ships
of war or transports as should offer to leave the
shores of Greece on their way homewards. The
occasion, on which a practical decision of this ques-
tion was demanded, occurred two months after the
battle of Nayarit). It was plain that after that event,
Ibrahim Pacha, desponding and disgusted with a si-
tuation which placed him in collision with the great
naval powers of Europe, and which left him so little
chance of ultimate success in the Morea, meditated
a retreat to Alexandria, as soon as his personal
honour or his father's safety would permit. That
he might at once begin his retrograde movement,
and relieve himself, while he remained, of those who
, consumed his stock of provisions, without increasing

Lincolnshire, against the assignees of Messrs. Baynes
arid Son, the late booksellers, of Paternoster-row,
to recover 285/. 19s. 7d., with interest thereon,
under these circumstances :—The plaintiff having
prior to October, 1826, made considerable pecu-
niary advances to Messrs. Baynes and Son, and there
being then running several bills of exchange, which
he had discounted for them, a written agreement
was entered into between them, by which Messrs.
Baynes and Son acknowledged themselves to be in-
debted to the plaintiff in the sum of 1,500/. ; and
for that amount they gave him five hills of exchange,
and deposited with him a quantity of books as a
security, agreeing, in case the 1,500/. was not paid
at the time stipulated, that the books should be sold
and the money paid out of the proceeds. After the
bankruptcy of Messrs. Baynes and Son, the books
were sent by the plaintiff from Louth and sold in
London by the auctioneer employed by the assignees.
The plaintiff's lien in respect of the 1,5001. was sa-
tisfied out of the proceeds, according to the terms
of the agreement. The sum now claimed was in
respect of three bills of exchange, amounting to
285/. 19s. 7d., which it appeared were renewals of
other bills that had been in circulation prior to
October, 1826, when the written agreement was
entered into ; and the question was, whether or not
the lien under the agreement had been extended to
this sum. The assignees contended that it had not,
and that the plaintiff' was only entitled to prove
under the commission. It appeared that after
Messrs. Baynes and Son's bankruptcy, the attorney
of the assignees, Mr. Ashurst, wrote to the plaintiff,
requesting that he would allow his portion of the
stock (the books) to be sold at the same time with
the other stock, under the direction of the assignees.
The plaintiff was afterwards written to by the ac-
countant employed by the assignees, who requested
that he (the plaintiff) would send up the books for
sale, stating that the assignees would hold them-
selves answerable to him for the proceeds. Subse-
quently the assignees wrote to the plaintiff on the
same subject, and recognised the lien, but did not
state to what extent it was limited.

his military strength, he prepared the shattered re-
mains of his ships of war and transports to convey
home the sick and wounded, arid the women and
children connected with the expedition. This fleet,
consisting of forty-five ships, thirty of which were
ships of war, set sail from Nuvarin, unobserved, on
the 17th or 18th of December; although an Eng-

lish brig and several French vessels were stationed
near the port to observe the Pacha's movements.
Had all the persons on board been Turks or Turkish
troops, their escape could only have been a subject
of congratulation to the Allies, who had no wish to
intercept them, or of regret to the Greeks, who
might have made a good prize—but this fleet carried
away a number of Greek slaves, which have been
variously stated at seven thousand, five thousand,
and six hundred, and which probably did not so
much exceed the last as it fell short of the first com-
putation.
" When the ships reached Alexandria, these live
cargoes were in the most horrible situation of want
and wretchedness, and an account, probably an
exaggerated one, being sent home of the supply
thus afforded to the slave market, our Admiral was
censured for not preventing this exportation. He
had himself written home on account of the pro-
ceeding, without being conscious that it was in his
power to prevent it. He was answered by an angry
note a month afterwards, (about the 18th of March,)
stating that by his instructions he ought to have
taken measures against the perpetration of such an
enormity, that he should have kept a strict blockade
of the Greek ports, which theescape of the Egyptian
fleet showed he had not done, that he ought to have
examined if troops were on board its vessels, and
on seeing the Greek slaves ought to have relieved
them; and that as he had done neither, he had no
security against the return of this fleet from Alex-
andria with fresh supplies of men and provisions.

The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAIL 15.

Ann Grey, known also as Ann Grey Court, was
opposed by Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of the assignee
of Frederick Dixon, a bankrupt.
The insolvent, in her examination by Mr. Nicholls,
stated that she had resided at various places—Ta-
vistock-place, Russell-square, Thornhaugh:street,
Portland-road, and Tottenham-court-road. Her
debts amounted to about 1,3001.; she was arrested
on the 13th of August, while she lived in Portland-
road, and gave bail ; she rendered to prison in No-
vember. All her property, consisting of household
furniture, valued at 3901., had been taken possession
of at her house in Portland-road, last June, by a
Mrs. Court, under a warrant of attorney, given to
that lady in February; but Mrs. Court allowed the
insolvent the use of the furniture under an agree-
ment, and receiving a bill of sale. In October Mrs.
Court died, and then her son and executor, Mr.
Joseph Court, took possession of the insolvent's fur-
niture, and he was now living in the house. Since
that time the insolvent had no controul over the
property, nor had she been at the house but once.
This Mrs. Court had befriended the insolvent by
lending her money at various times within the last
eight years, amounting to 6001. or 7001. In Fe-
bruary last she asked Mrs. Court for the loan of
1001., which was refused her, unless she gave a
warrant of attorney as security for that sum, and the
money previously advanced. At that time she gave
the warrant of attorney, and Mrs. Court advanced
the 1001. She swore that when the instrument was
enforced in June last, it was done without any col-
lusion between her and Mrs. Court. Mrs. Court
was no relation to the insolvent, but the reason of
the insolvent's having adopted the name of Court
was because some years ago she lived with Mr.
Court, the son of the lady who lent her the money.
She had not, however, lived with him for the last
five or six years, and she swore that he had not been
visiting her up to the time of her going to prison,
though she admitted that upon one occasion, when
he was arrested, she was his bail. Since she had
been in prison, Mr. Court had been to see her, not
about her own business, but respecting a young
lady under her care.
In examination by Mr. Comm, her Counsel, she
stated that she had been many years acquainted with
Mrs. Court, who, from certain unfortunate circum-
stances some years ago, began to assist her, and
whenever the insolvent wanted money, Mrs. Court
lent it to her, but not wishing to let her son know
that she did so. Mrs. Court put the warrant of
attorney in force in June, and allowed her (by giving
a bill of sale) to use the furniture afterwards; she
could assign no reason why Mrs. Court's son, after
his mother's death, took possession of the furniture.
A young lady had been living under the insolvent's
protection, and every communication she had had
since then with Mr. Court, had reference only to
that young lady.
Mr. Nictious submitted that the case was,
throughout, one of extreme suspicion.
The CHIEF COSIMISSIONER ordered her to be re-
manded to re-advertise, and upon her coming up
again the Court would order her to be discharged.

" The answer which Sir E. Codrin{iton returned

to this rebuke was a conclusive justification of his
conduct, though perhaps not a satisfactory excuse
for his government. It was that he was there to
execute the treaty of London in the spirit of peace,
and that a blockade was the proceeding of a bellige-
rent, which he was not warranted to undertake;
that after the battle of Navatin, the Greeks posses-
sing strength enough for that purpose, were invited
to form blockading squadrons, which suited their
character of belligerents ; that the escape of the
Egyptian fleet without observation, did not betray
negligence, as it had sailed so unprepared that its
provisions ran short before it reached Alexandria,
the ships themselves being in such a state of disrepair,
that one of the largest (a seventy-four gun ship)
sunk by the way; that even though he had met
them at the mouth of the harbour, he had no in-
structions to inquire into the composition of the
force on board, if he were assured they were pro-
ceeding home; that the persons called slaves corn,
posed the harem of the Pacha, and the wives cf the
Turks, who could not be either examined or taken
away without an act of hostility; and finally, that
most of those who were thus transported, departed
with their own consent, and would have resisted any
attempt at rescue.
" Whether every assertion or allegation in this
defence be correct or not, we are unable to say;
but one thing is certain, that the Admiral had no in-
structions on the subject, and that the question had
not even occurred to the Ministry at home. 'I he
only circumstance to which lie was referred by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, from which he was to
draw a rule for the direction of his conduct, was the
declaration which his predecessor, Sir H. Neale, in
1826, was empowered to make to Ibrahim, that the
British Government would not see with indiffer-
ence the inhabitants of the Morea either massacred
or carried off into slavery. 'I o this the Admiral re-
plied that nothing was ever done on that declara-
tion, and that his own instructions, which were
eighteen months later, had never made the slightest
allusion to it. We must add (and it is but fair that
the circumstance should be as universally known as
it has hitherto been unaccountably concealed) that
the French and Russian commanders, the colleagues

of Admiral Codrington, and acting under the same
set of instructions, when appealed to by him, wrote
him letters, expressing an entire concurrence in his
view of the case. They both confirmed his asser-
tion that they had no directions how to act in the
case of the deportation of slaves from the Morea,
and that had they met Ibrahim's fleet on its way to
Alexandria, they would not have conceived them-
selves warranted to stop and search his ships of war
to release them. Sir E. Codrington repeatedly ap-
plied to the Government at home for fresh instruc-
tions on this subject, between the month of March
and the receipt of his letter of recal ; but the only
answer which lie received was an intimation that his
Majesty had appointed his successor. Thus the
gallant Admiral lost the favour of the Government,
because he gained a ♦ictory for the liberation of
Greece, and was finally disgraced, on pretext of
having allowed the Greeks to be carried into sla-
very."—Morning Advertiser.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

UNION.HALL.
Yesterday several of the licensed victuallers resi-
dent within the district of this office were summoned,
some for keeping open during the hours of divine
service, and others for allowing what is technically
called " gambling" in their houses.
It may not be amiss to state in the outset, that the
magistrates have issued instructions to their officers
LAW INTLLIGENCI4. to attend to this duty, instead of permitting it to be
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAW. 15. done by the common informers.
DOBSON AND OTHERS v. DROOP. The first case was against Mr. Hurd, landlord of
This was an action for demurrage. The plaintiffs the Horse and Groom, in the parish of Newington.
were the owners of the brig Mantura, which, in He was charged with keeping open his house on the
1828 brought a cargo of goods from Bremen to 3d inst. during the afternoon service at Newington
London. The defendant, Mr. John Abraham Droop, Church.
was the consignee of some of the goods under two The witness went into the defendant's house at
bills of lading, in one of which it was stipulated that twenty minutes to five in the afternoon, and saw two
if the goods were not taken out ofotuhled be payableship
within
persons standing at the bar, who were served with
should fourteen running days, demurrageliquors. He added that divine service was then
at the rate of 51. a day. In the other bill of lading performing at the church, which was near at hand.
it was provided that the rate of the demurrage The defendant admitted that his house was just
should be four guineas a day. The vessel arrived opened when the officers entered, he considering
in London on the tith of January last, and was re. that the hours for closing in the afternoon of Sundays
ported at the Custom-house on that day, One of were from three to half-past four o'clock. If he had
the consignments to the defendant was a quantity offended, he had done so inadvertently. He also
of oats, and those goods formed the subject of the pleaded, in extenuation, that he had recently taken
bill of lading in which the demurrage was charge. the house, and was therefore ignorant of the precise
able at the rate of N. a day. They were ready to hour he was to close and open in the afternoon of
be delivered on the 6th of January, but were not Sundays in that parish.
taken away by the defendant until the 21st, one The defendant was fined 3/. and costs.
day beyond the stipulated time. The other con- Mr. Cardwell, landlord of the Bridge-house,
signmente consisted of wheat, barley, and beans, Vauxhall, was summoned for allowing gambling in
They were not removed until the 4d of February, his hoese,
aid in respect of them, therefore, fourteen dive The summons having been read, which set forth
demurrage was claimed. The oats, it appeared, the alleged offence, the defendant said that two re-
came in bulk, and were stowed between two rows 1 spectable tradesmen were playing a game of crib-
ot !sole in prigs, Whieh were piie4 one npon 4riothgr, hage in the parlour when the officers entered the
and formed what is called the bulk head?. On the room. There was no noise or clamour there, and
outside of these rows was a quantity of wheat be- it was during the Christmas festivities : therefore,
longing to other consignees; and it was stated on he trusted the latter circumstance would have some
the part of the defendant that his oats could not be weight with the Magistrates in overlooking the
removed u:eil after the wheat bad been removed. offence.
This was the ground of defence to the claim in re- The officers admitted that the parties who were
spect of the oats.- It appeared, however, by the playi ig the game were respectable.
evidence that the oats might have been removed : Nit. Hosts said t hat if the defendant looked at
nrei it was ptoyed that only thirty quarters of the his licence he would not there find it set forth that
wheat had been taken out when they were removed, eared-playing was allowable during the holydays
With respect to the other goods, it appeared that an more than at other times,
order was given on the 16th of January for the . The defendant did not know it was an offence
delivery of some of the bags of barley; and on the for two respectable persons to play a game at crib-
) Sltli these wee an eider fel. the leans. The bage to amuse themselves for an hour,
f the 3
thesed of February.goods,u'ith
the wheat,,
were not got The defendant was fined 40s. and costs.
°
I Mr. Rymer, landlord of the John Bull, in Barret-
":lllt
ioe o' untillh eJury, without hesitation, found for the plain- street, Lambeth, was summoned for a similar offence.
tiffs, in respect of the wheat, barley, and beans— The witness proved that he saw the defendant
Damages, 581. 16s. and a young lad (his son) playing a game at " all-
Jectisosi v. yENABLES AND OTHERS. fours," in a small room within the bar.
This was a question of lien. The action was The defendant admitted that he and his son were
brought by Mr. joeksoal a bookseller of Louth, in amusing themselves with a game of cards when the