The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-21 00:00:00

footing our commercial relations with this country. We
may, however, perhaps be permitted to suggest the inex-
pediency of assigning such a tfsk to any person previously
known in China as connected with commerce, conducted
under the trammels and degradations to which it has hi-
therto been subjected, or to any one, in short, who has had
the misfortune either in a public or privz.te capacity, to
endure insult or injury from Chinese authorities.
-Equally inexpedient would it be, as appears to your pe-
titioners, to treat with any functionary not specially nomi-
nated by the Imperial cabinet, and not on any account
with those of Canton, whose constant course of corrupt and
oppressive conduct forms a prominent ground of complaint;
or to permit any future Commissioner to set his foot on the
shores of China, until ample assurance is afforded of a
reception and treatment suitable to the dignity of a Minis-
ter of your Majesty, and the honour of an empire that ac-
knowledges no superior on earth.
And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c.
Canton, Dec. 9, 1834.
(Here follow the signatures.)

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

WATTS V. FRAZER AND ANOTHER-LIBEL.

This was an action for libel, brought by Alaric Alexander
Watts, Esq. Editor of the Literary Souvenir, against the
proprietor and publisher of Frazer's Magazine. The case
had been tried before Lord Denman at the Sittings after
last Term, and a verdict had for the plaintiff, damages 150/.
A new trial had been subsequently moved for by Mr. Earle,
on the ground of the rejection of certain evidence at the
trial, rehitive to the plaintiff being the publisher of certain
newspapers, which contained reflections upon the characte
of the defendant Frazer:

Lord DENMAN now delivered the judgment of the Court.
The point to which the attention of the Court had been di-
rected, was one which they thought a fit matter for reconsi-
deration, and therefore there ought to be a rule for a new
trial.--Rule absolute.

DAVIES V. WILLATTS.
This was an action for money had and received, brought
by the plaintiffs, who are extensive cloth manufacturers,
against the defendant, to recover the amount of certain bills
wich had been discounted by him for the plaintiffs' agent
in London, and which the plaintiffs had been subsequently
called upon to pay. It appeared that the plaintiffs' agent,
Williamson, had drawn bills at a longer date than he was
authorised to do, and had acted in a very fraudulent manner
towards his employers, by converting their proceeds to his
own use. The case had been tried at the London Sittings
after last Term, before Mr. Justice Coleridge, when the
plaintiffs were nonsuited. A rule to set aside the nonsuit,
had been moved for during the present Term by ate
Attorney-General, on the ground that the defendant sl'Aould
have been required to prove how the bills came ilito his
possession.

Lord DENMAN now gave judgment. Tine Court did
not think that any fraud attached to the ,lefendant in his
transactions with the plaintiffs' agent-, and therefore as the-
hills bad been discounted in the rr_gular course of trade, he
should not be called upon V.; give an- account of how he
came by them. They were of opinion on these grounds
that there ought to ht no rule.---Rule refused.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

The Court was engaged the whole morning in hearing
Mr. CRESWELL and Mr. THESSIGER, against, a rule for &
new trial in the insurance case, of Chattock v. Shawe.
The case will occupy the whole day.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
The Judges met this morning in the Exchequer Cham-
ber, when they selected their Circuits for the Spring As-
sizes as under :
NORTHERN—Lord Denman and Baron Parke.
HOME—Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice Vaughan.
MIDLAND—Lord Abiuger and Mr. Justice Bosanquet.
NORFOLK—Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Gaselee.
WESTERN—Mr. Justice Littledale and Mr. Baron Bolland.
OXFORD—Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Williams.
NORTH WALES—Mr. Baron Gurney.
SOUTH WALES—Mr. Justice Coleridge.