The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-15 00:00:00

Whig candidates, therefore, use words for that end for ,
which an eminent French diplomatist conceives lan-
guage to have been given us—the concealment of the
thoughts. They are unwilling to destroy the Peer-
age, but possibly they may be convinced ; they are re-
luctant to abolish the Church, but perhaps they may
be converted; they have scruples upon the extension
of the franchise, but another session may enlighten them
upon its propriety ; they deem the ballot a hazardous
experiment, but another debate may persuade them
of its necessity. Not in East Cornwall only, but in
every city and district in which the name of Whiggery
is known, this see-saw rhetoric is employed, that the
adverse sections may yet be joined in a brief alliance,
and the Rashleighs and the Molesworths once more
brought up to the same poll. But the breach is too
wide—the differences too serious—and the equivocation
which, when it succeeds, is base, when it fails is con-
temptible. In Downing-street—where Mr. Henry
Bulwer, conscious of the inconvenience of holding this
opinion or that opinion, hints to the Cabinet the ad-
vantage of holding no opinion at all, we wonder how
often the Duke's famous question is, now-a-days, re-
peated, " Hew is the King's Government to be car-
ried on ?—Morning Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEc. 14.
NICHOLSON V. BONNER.

This was an action to recover the sum of 291., for corn
supplied to the defendant. The defendant had pleaded
payment, and put in a receipt dated in 1835 (it was
doubtful on the face of the receipt whether February or
July in that year), purporting to be for the sum of
231. odd, the articles making the sum up to 291. having
been, as it was alleged, supplied since that time. The re-
ceipt was given by a man named Penfold, as the clerk of
the plaintiff. To answer this case, the plaintiff having
first admitted that Penfold had for some time acted as
his clerk and agent, put in a letter written by himself to
the defendant, and dated the 30th of December, 1834,
calling for the payment of the 231., and expressly re-
questing the defendant not to pay Penfold, who had at
that time ceased to be in the plaintiff's service. The deli-
very of this letter to the defendant was proved, and it was
contended for the plaintiff that, express notice having thus
been given of the termination of the agency of Penfold, the
defendant had no right to make any payment to him, and
was liable to the plaintiff, notwithstanding such payment.—
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 291.

EXCHEQUER COURT, DEC. 14.
BAINBRIDGE V. LORD ASHBURTON.

The bill in this case was filed by consent, and involved
no question of conflicting interests, the object being to get
the opinion of the Court as to whether the legal estate did
or not pass to the defendant as devisee, under the will of
Alexander Adair, one of the trustees in the will of Lady
George Beauclerk. The question turned on the construc-
tion of the words in the residuary clause in the will of Mr.
Adair, whereby he devised to his godson, Alexander Ba-
ring, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, all his
lands, tenements, &c., not before disposed of, " to and for
their own use and benefit." The defendant having declined
to act in the trust, and there being no power to appoint a
new trustee, the present suit was instituted to determine
the point.
Having heard the arguments of Counsel, his Lordship
was of opinion that the legal estate under the general
words passed to the defendant. The effect was the same as
if the words had been " to his use and behoof."
Declared accordingly.