The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-12 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR.

WINDSOR, JAN. 11.

The following had the honour of dining with her Ma-
jesty yesterday :—Her Royal Highness the Duchess of
Kent, his Serene Highness the Prince of Leiningen, her
Serene Highness the Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe,
the Lady in Waiting to the Duchess of Kent, the Ba-
roness de Speth, the Hon. Mrs. Grey and Miss Bulteel,
the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell, and Mr. Gibbs.
Her Majesty's private band attended in the Castle in
the evening, and played the following music :
Overture, "Die Genueserinn Lmdpaintner.
Coro, " Il Crociato" Meyerbeer.
Andante, Minuetto, Trio, Finale,
Sinfonia, " Jupiter"i Mozart.
Finale, "Oberon" Weber.

His Royal Highness Prince Albert, accompanied by
the Prince of Leiningen and the Right Hon. Edward
Cardwell, went out shooting this forenoon, attended by
Colonel the Hon. C. B. Phipps, and Lieut.-Colonel F.
H. Seymour. The Right Hon. Edward Cardwell ar-
rived yesterday afternoon on a visit, and left the Castle
to-day for London.

Colonel Godfrey, Mr. Gillespie, and Mr. Roberts, had
interviews with the Duke of Newcastle, at the Colonial-
office.

The Earl of Aberdeen's dinner party on Monday, in-
cluded the Belgian, Russian, Turkish, and Austrian
Ministers, Lord John Russell, the Earl of Clarendon,
Viscount Palmerston, Sir James Graham, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
The Right Hon. E. Cardwell returned to town yes-
terday afternoon, from Windsor Castle.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS _DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

The Courts sat this morning at Lincoln's-inn, and will
continue to do so during the remainder of the term. No
business of importance was brought before them.

QUEENS BENCH.
TALLIS AND OTHERS V. TALLIS.-JUDGMENT.

The defendant in this case entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs not to carry on the canvassing trade
of a publisher within 150 miles of the London General
Post-office, or at Manchester or Liverpool ; and 'an
action was brought against him for breach of covenant.
The defendant contended that the action could n of be
sustained, as the contract was a constraint on trade, and
illegal.
Lord Campbell delivered judgment in the case this
morning in favour of the plaintiffs, intimating that the
Court were of opinion that the contract was not illegal
on the grounds alleged by the defendant.
Judgment for the plaintiffs accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
MORGAN V. CLIFTON.

This was an action upon a promissory note for 1,0001.,
given by the defendant the now Sir Robert Clifton, son
of the late Sir Jukes Clifton, to a person of the name of
Rowlands, and passed by the latter to the plaintiff, an
hotel keeper in Wales. The case was tried before the
Lord Chief Baron at the London sittings, after last
Trinity term, when the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with damages for 8001.
It appeared upon the trial that the defendant having
become acquainted with Rowlands, who was described
as a medical man, but somewhat attached to horse
racing and its associations, in the course of time in-
troduced him at his father's at Clifton Hall, near Not-
tingham. During this visit it was arranged that
the defendant should make a continental tour, and
that Rowlands should be his companion. The tour
was commenced, and, as the parties were going
up the Rhine, they played at dominoes, and the result
was that the defendant was a loser of 2,0001. For
this loss he did not at the time give Rowlands any note,
but some months subsequently, when he was on a visit
at a friend's in Ireland, Rowlands called upon him, when
he gave him two promissory notes, for 1,0001. each,
upon the undertaking of Rowlands, that payment of the
notes should not be demanded until after the death of
Sir Jukes Clifton, a gentleman, who was, at that period,
some years above 80. Rowlands, however, in violation
of this agreement, as it was alleged, had passed the note
upon which the present action was brought to the plain-
tiff, and, as it was not paid on presentation, proceedings
were instituted. On Michaelmas Term a rule was ob-
tained for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was against the evidence, and it yesterday came on for
argument, when
Mr. E. James applied for the postponement of the
case until to-day, as there was every prospect of the
parties coming to an understanding, and on the judges
entering the Court this morning, intimated that an ar-
rangement had been entered into, which would relieve
their lordships of any further trouble in the matter.