The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-05 00:00:00

Til I, SUN, LONDON', TI:URSDA Y, MAY 5, 1836.

ENCIL-WEDNESDAY.

B;:NTON V. PEPPERCORN

This was an action for a malicious prosecution, in
Chi' plaintiff had recovered 500/. dantiges. A nil! lad
been obtained to set aside the verdict, and, the case liarng
been disposed of in the absence of the plaintiff's Counsel,
one of the junior Counsel for the plaintiff had afterwards
offered to consult his client on the proposition, that the rule
For the new trial might be niade absolute on the payment
of costs, he declaring thet his client would most certainly
recover a larger verdict.
Si F PouocK now appeared to say that this arrange-
ment was not consented to, and that the Learned Counsel's
(ET was only to be considered as an asset tian of his own
confidence in the case.

The COURT took time to look into the re2ort of the
trial, and detcrrni2e what should be done.

COMMON iILE:9B.-WED-NESDAY.

RIGBY V. OAKLEY.

The (I,:eison of the Cuurt in this important else involved
the legality of all transactions in Spanish and Regency
Stock, as coming under the Statute of Gorge 111., passed
in 178-1.

The case came on for trial at the after sittings of last
Ttinity Term at Guildhall, before Sir N. C. Tinda!, and a
verdict was then given fur the plaintiff. The facts were,
the defendant had a large share of property in the Spanish
Regcncy Del Monte and other Foreign Stocks. The plain-.
tiff, a Stockbroker, was employed to transact the Various
transfers. In the present case the plaintiff purchased five
thousand three hundred pounds Spanish, and five thousand
pounds Regency, for the &Send:lnt, to make up a deficiency
in his Bolanos Stock. After the transfer was effected, the
defendant denied the plaintiff's authority, for which reason
the present action was brought.
Mr. PLATT obtained Rule Nisi for a new trial or a
nonsuit; and appeared to-day to support the Rule in reply
to
.Sir Wm. Follett, who showed cause against it.
Mr. BARsTow, in support of the Rule Nisi, argued, in
support of the nonsuit, that the Stock in question carne
within the Statute.—Rule discharged.

PREROGATIVE COURT.

FILY AGAINST GEE.-JUDGMENT.

Sir H. Jenner gave judgment in this case yesterday.
This was a question respecting an alleged codicil to the nit;. '
of Mrs. Frances Alaria Burn, of Camberwell, who died on
Sept. 17, 183,1, po3sessing personal property to the amount
of 7,0001., consisting mainly of a leasehold estate at New-
ington. Upon.the death of her husband in May, 1832, the
whole of his property was bequeathed to her by his will,
under which she was appointed sole executrix. The only
next of kin of the deceased was Mrs. Fry, the wife of Mr.
Thomas Fry, and niece of the deceased, one of the parties
in this cause. The other party was Mr. Charles L. Gee,
described as a first cousin of the deceased. Three testa-
mentary papers were before the Court. The executors were
Mr. James Taylor and Mr. Thomas Fry. After going
into the facts of the case at considerable length, the Learned
Judge said he had no difficulty in pronouncing against the
validity of the codicil propounded by Mr. Fry, and in fa-
vour of the codicil pleaded, if not propounded, by Mr. Gee,
for the evidtmce was amply sufficient to prove that the
copy of the codicil of the 15th was the substance of that
codicil, nor further in condemning, Mr. Fry in the costs.

The Registrar stated that the codicil of the ]sth had been
propounded.

COURT OF FACULTIES.

THE PRINCE OF CAPUA V. COUNT LUDOLFF.

This was an application for a license of marriage between
the Prince of Capua, a bachelor, aged 21 and upwards,
and Miss SMyth, a spinster, of the age of 21 and upwards,
who have been resident fifteen days in the parish of St.
George's, Hanover-square. The license was opposed by a
caveat lodged by Count Ludolf, the Neapolitan Minister,
on the ground that by the law of Naples a Prince of the
blood royal cannot contract marriage without the King's
permission ; that the Prince of Capua is a member of the
Royal Family of Naples, and a domiciled subject of that
kingdom, and that he has not obtained the consent of the
King to such marirage, but, on the contrary, the King has
expressly forbidden such marriage.
The King's Advocate, in support of the caveat, con-
tended that the grant of. a license of marriage was an act
of grace and favour, and might be refused ; and that this
was a case in which the Court ought to reject the appli-
cation.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON, for the Prince of Capua, contended
that the Court ought not to impose upon itself an impedi-
ment which the law did not impose.
Dr. NICHOLL (Master of the Faculties) was of opinion
that the grant of a license was an act of grace and favour ;
consequently that the Court had the discretion to grant, or
withhold it. He should look into the records of the re-
gistry, and declare to-morrow whether the Court had such
discretion ; if so, he thought this a case in which the liccno
ought to be refused.

,klil !!!,
)

DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

THIS DAY.

At Cie siting of the Committee this morning, Mr. WIZANG-,
iIA SI proceeded at com,iderable length to argue in support of
.he objection to the vote of Patrick Bilton, on acconut of ar-
rears of \\ Street tax.
The Committee decided, that as it appeared a presentment
Aas made by the C..-and Juries of the county, and county or the
;;Ity of Dublin foe. the Els.ter and Michaelmas Terms of 1631, at

lit! rate of Is. in the pound of Ministers money, and ia pur
suan::e thereof, the Treasurer had issued his warrants assessing
the house No. 17, Sycamore-alley, for the sum of 2.F. 4d.
nor each term for which the voter ( Peter Bilto,p) being
:he sole occupier, was liable, and both sums appearing
,o have been due at the time or the election, the vote must be
,truck off the poll.

Ale. Hutton said there was another ol@etion to striking off
this vote, but the Gintrnittec decilcd that it could not then be
entertained.
The vote of Alattl.v C.-osby, in the the same class, was
under tliscussion when our reporter left.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OFCOMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Ten Minutes to Four
o'clock.

Tnere were only twenty-five Members present at that time,
int they continued to drop in one by one until just at lour
o'clock, when the House should adjourn if forty Members
were not in attendance, the requisite number was made up.