The Sun.
London, England, 1809-06-13 00:00:00

SU.V.

If you have a corm;,.. tU sp3re, ti on will perhaps
insert ati observation or. two on a passne in Mr.
Fox's PestliumOns work, Lot tho subje,-t of po.
litiCS, but literature. . In a letter' Iron) ltilr, Fox to
tbe present Lord Gaay.rwhielt the hohl,! Editor has
given in his introdcnttion .to that wotka Mr. fi'ex
maintains art opinion, not original, indeed, wait
that the Nightingale's note, is Hot, as generally sap-
Posed, plaintiye, bOt cheerful. Pe says that Tugo,..•
cttATus has six or seven titues.,o,4l3otionock thig bird,
hut never speaks of her note as, plaintive or meta:l-
- And
observes, that ctlAuoua, Om of all
Poets, seems to he the fotide,it of the singing IA hit its,
calls it a m.rry note." The tut-laruhply, or,
dreadful fable of
.the,origio of ;news tho
general, tvinion.ot the- th
Fox admits, that SoPrtoOt.ts is agtuust his 01/4411
conception, but says that• even that .Poet rother
mentions her persengraitpc.day and night; than her
sorrow, and, 41luding to thq,eurnp.diisto,i,
lope's footlessness,- in the Qdy.ssey,
,tv the Nightin-
gale, thinks the Poet .uorisiderjoho bird's ogre ;is,.
iritti,:ating resiiespiess and ti.rrirVii//gts. T4ese..
dispositk)as, however, are tai,),t a ~4ctio, -at vari-
atietti with the OpiDeitt t kat,. hqr,4lQtq;
,tst‘ ,7r
ut surely we , may oppose -4\111.T0 Trio Di
sOs, who were both grel:t 47)1,,,tstrysers of iNa-
tore, to the authorities Ftlt4ed
The- former has .often mon tioued N
And always as heieg , 4;i -.44L1114
11/0
,noiie, roily,;--
'•-Bu ti
wits, wii,9l
tr
opinion might 4A1.10,t,b ;kit
.41
not itt4eed NotArtAvo.,oks,Aisioatoolt,iigAs El
(.44PLIV,Pg, Ilf!7txpira ,411-11V.Via.1",r9044
44''4,§7,,A yer &Astir:l 01-•.:r--Pi ' 74- „.
thatNiAtingtlWlPConTurn, utr9f4liinieg,rote.s
t oAntk.jpikopiketuv,, .
And" 'in his 1024 Sonnet Ihrtsideireithe'
pass4ge4--- - 4 7 ••
.4! P.bilomel-her rriqurefut Hymns (Fa rt stt ifittttel
-. • As' SkiAILE4I3Aa e was ont; the mist and 6i: ha' OliSth:fors of l'itiltire Wi4ll'.
ever seen, 1. shotthi think that hiulescr;Ttinn*B ,
Oqte
Nighstingaleniust be deeasiii,6 .of the 44s1;6rt.
subjeti, hoiVvcver is pm untwqtl,y, of the
cif -your poeticayatid
briOSt.tit/g. tht,sl', trifle yOl3 fil3y shrne niore
interesting coutrikation to your Jenori3l,
AN OLT) eciti;i4ONI;ENT.
OV'oed Creee,iiintse, „bile 1

Mrs..SibDONs has extended her engagemetlt for a
few nights at E,dinburgh. The Tr.igcdv "z,-af`;
Waritick ha 4 been revived then., In °icier to
play= her powers in Morgarrt 4iriou, which she
was to portorialast night.

LAW nEPOIT.

COURT OT jt:rtaz 12.

MOLI.ETT V. BRAINS.

An anion to ,recover the sum of tol, 103. for
Insings.. The, PI fintiff is pPastrycook. icy. Smith:
tic Id, tile Defrild,-mt occupied apartments in his
house at the rate of 40 guineas per annum. He
quitted them on the 29th of De ember last, and
tender. .d. the Plaintiff' ;01, igs..gd. being the amount
for the quarteF's rent. due at Christmas, and the three
si.bseqtient days, but the Plaintiff refused to receive
dle money tendered, and brought his tte,lion for the
rtilorter's relit up to Lady-doy last. The question
to the case, was whether thd.parole admission of the
Plaintitf that he the Defendant was at liberty to quit
a i soon as he foinul it convenient to himself, was to
be taken as a waver of the right to the quarter's- nog
tice.

it was shewn byevidenee,for the Defendant that,
there had been a distringas on his goods for tl. half
a year's rent due at Michaelmas, that the Plaintiff
upon receiving the money promised the Defendant
(who bad complained that he did not keep to his
agreement to repair the lodgings) he would, now he
bad got his money, repair immediately, but the De-
fendant told him that it was too late, for his family
had
,been pot to too much inconvenience, for him.
to consent to remain any longer. The Plaintiff re.
plied, that be. was at 'jinni), to go, for that the.
apartments were underlet, and be_ could any day get
more for them.
Lord ELLENBOhOUGH was of opinion that, this pa-
role permission to depart was not sufficiently binding
on the Plaintiff. The custom of yearly lodging let-
ting being a qUarter's notice.
The Jury accordingly found a verdiet for the
Plainliff—Daturtges 10, ios.

JUNI,. 5.

HURD V. NFITTLETON ANI) OTHERgi.

This was eh Batt for an 'assault and talse impri-
sonment. The Pl4intiff was a 'peruke-maker in the
Strand, and the Defendant a constable of the night,
a d the watch-house keeper of St. Paul's, Covent-
garden. • •
• Abraham Hurd, brother of the Plaintiff, proved
the following case :—That himself and .his brother,
with three female relations, went to. Drury-lane
Playhouse in the Chris:Mas Holidays; they • in-
tended to pie the one shilling gallery at half-price,
- and they paid their. money when they got to the gal-
lery-door; there was no ream, and they came and
demanded their money to be returned, which was
refused them, but they were told they might have a
Cheque for the two shilling gallery; this was also
full ; they, therefore sent the women home, and
returned to the one shilling gallery, and claimed
their money, this was again refused, and the De-
fondant Nettleton ratite forward and swore he would
clear the stairs; they.refiised to go without
.their
money, upon which Nettleton seized the Plaintiff by
the collar, dragged him down stairs, and took him
to the watch-house; the witness attempted to inter-
fere; upon which he charged him with attempting a
rescue, and caused him also to be taken to the
.watch-
house;they were hot it thrust intim dark h ole, and kept
for Upwardsof two hours; they were then permitted
to come out, and told they might have a bed for two
shillings, which they lutist pay, or else they should
be put back again in the dark-room, The next
Morning they Were freed to hay a shilling for leave
to send to their friends, and two shilliags more to be
permitted to sit by the fire. '• They were carried be-
fore' Mr. Read, when they were both instantly
charged.—Several Witnesses were called by the De-
fepdants to. prose that the Plaint iff made a riot on the
Theatre stairs, bet it did not appear that they did
more than demand a return of their money.—iter-
did for the Plaintiff, deniages 101.

COtiRT OF COMMON rLEAs, MAY 3►.

IiONVARII, EKE9UTOIX, V. I.RIGIITONI, KNIT.

This was an anion to retover a- compensation for
services performed by the late husband of the Plain-
tiff.

It appeared, En the part of the Plaintiff, that.
Mr.,Howard was employedby Wm. Leighton,
as Captain ,of the transport ship Alexander, fsent
4ne• 1804,' till-OkStober isb7, being a Space of 40
months,when the ship and greatet part of her crew
perished, including the Captain .and his two ay-.
prentiees. It was proved, that the usual pay to
Captain% of transports v.-.4S 1 di per month, with an'
additional elloWance of el. 'es: per month, for -ca-
bin expences. • A claim was also made for the ser,
rites of the two apprentice:, which was overruled,'
Wine such 'haring heen agreed for. The whole
claim amounted to 4t.w,1,-6s. ' •
On the part of the Defendant, it vas stated, that
'the decease& Captain had been much esteemed' by
the'Defenciant ; bad been engaged in extensive pe-
cuniary concerns ; and that were his accounts set..
tied, a balance would be found due to the Difend,
ant but in consideration of his services, and in
commiseration of the distresses of the widoW, 'this
Defendant 'had given .ten pounds; and had paid
004 Into Court, although he knew, by defending
the salon, the Plaintiff could nut recover a far-
thing. Several bills were then put in, drown. by
the deceased foe the general service of the Alexan-
der, and tkerpfor the private'ese of the Captain's'
which together 'stemmed totout sum greatly exceed
ing the demand, and were claimed as a set-off. • '
One of the' Jury asked whether the ship ac-
count and the private account of the deceased,
should not be considered as two separate questions
To which Lord MswertaLo Ihswered, that It should
Appear where demands were made, that more re-
meene4 unpaid than had been received, and held it
Lobe cleat that these accounts should he considered
as one.
• Mr.. Setjettot ,Vadoesx, for the Plaintiff, with
great submission; maintained a very different °pi-
llion from his Lordship, and coeteoded that ,the:
ems cherged only to Captain Howard's prirate
account, could be deduced from the present di-
mond, and that even those were disputable.
Lord Mstrtetzt.o, it addressing -the Jury, sup-
ported his former opinion, suld said it was clear
they -filmy find for the Defendant..
The Jery, noweVer, after about ten minutes con,
if,eeration, returned their Verdia forthe- Planktiff,

toenurt, and the sum rpettio Capt. pri.
vqteacr.ptlut.,

COURT Of CHANCERY; Irma 6,
4'kx PARTE SAWYER IN THE ItIiTTEli ol? WOOLLEY.

, .
This was a Petition' from Sawyer the "Assignee,
under the Bankruptcy of Woolley, for an order to
colopel one Stapleton, afoyiner Assignee, to render
an account. Stapleton being chosen Assignee, had
taken upon himself to_carry on the business of • the
Batikrupt, which was that of a Brewer, with the
Bankrupt's- stock. This he did at his own risk, as
lie stated—he had no authority from/the creditors.
He was willing to render an account, on condition
that lie should bti reimbursed for any loss he might
have sustained.

After Sir S. Itomitt.y and Mr. HART had. been
heard for the Petitioner, and Mr. Aua It for the De-
fendant,
The LoaD CHANCELLOR said, that this was a
new case in the history of bankruptcy, that an as-
si4nee should have thus taken upon himself to deal
wtth the bankrupt's property. lie ordered Stapleton
to render an account before the Master—if there
were prbAts he rang pay them into the fund, if
there was loss, it would be a subject fof after con-
sideration, whether he should be allowed the
amount.