The Sun.
London, England, 1812-05-05 00:00:00

Instead oP the expeaed accommodation recom-
mended by the LORD CHANCELL.OR, as mote pro-
fitable to the pares than any order of the Court,
which will be groundzd on the articles- and deed- of
co-partnerstliir, Strictly, v ithout regarding the. petty
differences sespealing the minor atflirs .of ttte con-
cern, a motion was•made on-behalf of the defendant,
fora new lease for years, of pan of the 'Theatre,
with a view of cremin4 an interest tin the persons
obtaining it, to tnake repairs and tiecessaly imprae-
men ts, he .old4!ref.e, bting about to expire. .
The LORD CHANCELL:OR ob.:ft-vett, in accordance
with Sir S.Am-ett, P.OOULLY, who opposed the appli-
catiOn on behalf of the pftin:itf, Mr. Morris, that
he could no"more grant such a lease -as was now
asked for, than he could order a lease in fee of the
whole Theatre. . .

The Learned Counsel stated, from a letter hand-
ed up .to the Court, addiessed by the defendant to
the plaintiff, since the late motion in the lass week,
that no prosped of acccorhrhoda,ion arpe.ired prac-
ticAble, nor any other arrangement; but through fis
Lordship's regular order, which was the mote ne-
cessary, as the season was to conumnce in a few
days for the performances.

His Lordship again repeated his regret at the ob-
stinacy of the parties in rvsisiing their own advan-
tages so peremptorily. They reminded him of a
certain Head of a College, who had ihe power of
expelling retratiory members, after thiice admo-
nishing them previously, and cited an otiender, • to
whom he said, in one breath—"l admonish. you
once—l admonish you twice—l, admonish you
thrice, and at the same time I expel you." Such
was the conduct of the person oti-litThg tofcOmpio-
mise in this case ; but his older. being necess:try
now as final, he should pronounce it Asolu•e, and
the parties would feel it" to their- mutual dii,appoint-
ment, as to their- triviardifferenceg and altercations.
The motion was refused, and the order deferred.

COURT OF KlNG's BENCH, MAY 4.

THE XING V. WM. BROTHERLY.

This defend-tint was brought LI) for judgment,
having been convicted of having in his possession
a quantity of King's stores, consisting of copper
bolts marked with the broad arrdw.

After heating thedcfendant's attidavit,in mitiga=
tion c.fpunishment, and several to charaaer—
___

Th.e sentenced.itito to siS,. 40-intlis impri-
sonment in Maid6tone jail, and to pay a fine of 251:

THE KING. V. WM. FARROUGH.

This defendant was also brought up for judgment,
hAving suffered judgment to go by default, charging
a riot a►.:d assault in January last.
It appeared that the defendant, with several other
persons, Ind itunultuouslf assembled at Chichester,
attacked Jilt] broke oven the rendezvous of a press-
gang„and violen!ly assaulted the gang, for the put-
pose of re•cuirig.an impressed tnan, brother to the-
defendant.

The d-Aenclant's affidavit expressed his cant iition
for the otfente he had committedi stating, that he
had been induced to it from his atfettton to his
brother, and a mistaken idea of the illegality of the
impress, his brother being already serving in the
Local Militia, and the impres# warrant not being
hacked by a Magistrate, and no Cie i 1 Officer be-
present at the time, but being afterwards con-
vinced ()fills eirot, had, suffered judgment to go by
default.

Several other affidatits were put in to the de-
feodant'sjgeneral eharatter.
The COURT then sentenced him to four months
imprisonment in Horsham in consideration of
havingibeen already in coofjoement 71 days.

TUB KING V, HENRY IigATRAFF.

This defendan► had been conviete.l at the last As-
sizeslor Winchester, before Mr. Justice Chambie,
of aiding and assisting the escape 9f three French
prisoners of war.

• It appeared that the defendant, with some others,
had niade a regular system of this practice, by which
they obtained considerable sums of money.
Mr. EDWARD Laws was hem-d on behalf of the.
defendant in mitigation of punishment, and the AT-
TORNEY-GENERAL for the prosecution..
• Lord ELLENaORoUGH observed, that this was a
most enormous offence, and the defendant a sort of
of wholesale dealer in prisoners of war, but having
already suffered eight months imrrisonment-
The Court sentenced him to -three years impri-
sonment in Wincheter Gaol, and to pay a tine
of 1.001..

THE KING V. JOSEFIT WEST.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT moved fora writ of ar-
tiorari in this case, to remove a ,convialion of 'ttNo
of the Magistrates at Worship-street Police-Office
against the 'defendant, for exercising hi 4 trade of a
grocer on the Sabbath, upon the ground that. no
specific act had been laid in the infutmation. The.
Learned Sejeant further st.:ted, that there were se-
veral other .similar inforriiations before the Mogis-
trates, who had suspended conviction until the de-
cision of the Court upon this Case.
Writ granted.

COURT OF COSIIIO.N PLEAS, M4Y

LANGHORNE V. COLOGAN.

This was a case of a policy of insurance "effened
by the plaintiff, which.cnntained an entry of the
specification of interest to u: hich the defendant,' as
undr-r%riter, had not annexed his initials. The case
had been irieti before the Court at the last Guildhall
Sitting, and a verdiel, liable to be controverted at
law, returned.

Mr. Serjeant LENS, for the defendant; contended
that no communication of the alteration eft-Med in
the policy had been made to Cologan, although such
had been made to the accompanying underwriters
whose names appeared on the policy; but though
no communication had been made to Cologan, still
the policy had not become a void instrument with
the new shape it had assumed, therefore, ht.! would
contend, that no premium could be recovered, be:,
cause that Cologan stood ready to perform his part
of the contract, though the plaintiff had deemed it
expedient to give a new appearance to the insurance
policY; besides, the instrument being a new one,