The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-05 00:00:00

of Mr. Page that the property had not been 'offered to any other
person for sale, he agreed to give a note to Mr. Fellow-3 in part
payment for 5351. After he had done so, however, he discovera
from Mr. Robins that the property had previously been offerod
for sale all over the town, and that no purchaser tould be found
—that Mr. Fellowes had, in fact, bought it from Lord Gwydyr,
and instead of being now selling it as his Lordship's agent, he
was re-sellin it for his own profit. Mr. Page immediately sent
word to Mr. Fellowes, that he was ready to restore to him the key
of the hall,with all the property therein, on condition of his note
for 535/. being restored to him. This was not done: the note
was passed into the hands of estranger, and Mr. Page, upon being
obliged to pay the amount, proceeded to sell the fixtures its
the hall, which produced OR. beyond the amount of the note,
without making any deduction liar Mr. Page's trouble, through
whose activity even the sum mentioned had been obtained
from the sale. The whole sum, without any deduction,flMr.
Page was now called upon to pay into court, not by Lord
Gwydyr, who declined having his name inserted in the bill,
but by Mr. Fellowes. Now, Mr. Page contended he had only
dealt with Mr. Fellowes as the agent of his Lordship, and was.
not bound to pay over the amount called for, except by the
direction of Lord Gwydyr.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired whether Mr. Page dis-
claimed the contract ; if he did, he must pay the money into
Court ; if he did not, he was liable to a decree for the unpaid
balance.

The Counsel being unable to give the Vice-Chancellor a
satisfactory explanation of the terms of the agreement bey
tween the parties, his HONo tat desired the bill and declara-
tion to be left for him to peruse at home.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 4
STRINGER V. MARKHAM.
This was an action by the executors of Mrs. Brockerler
against the executors of Mr. Covini on a note for the payment
of 500/., within six months from Mr. Covin's decease. The
parties lived at Louth, in the county of Lincoln, where the
note was given on the 16th of March, 1813. It purported to be
given in consideration of natural love and affection anti of ser-
vices rendered, and thereafter to be rendered, by affection,
Brocker.
ley. She was connected with him very distantly by marriage,
but not related by blood, and had occasionally assisted in his
faMily. The note was not given at his house, but at.that of a
man named Adam Eve, who attested the note as a witness. At
the trial, before Mr. Baron Bullock, the defence set up was,
that the testator, an old man of 74, was not of sound and dis-
, posing mind, and was unduly influenced to make the instru.
ment. It was proved that, before this time, he would, when he
saw a cow milked, exclaimed, " HoW much milk that horse
gives !" and when asked after his health, would answer, " I
died some time ago." Ile had been a Commissioner of the.
Court of Conscience in his borough, and used to site hear all
the arguments, and say nothing, and then say the Judgment
must be for the plaintiff instead of the defendant, or vie: versa.
A commission of lunacy was afterwards taken out against him,
and he was found a lunatic; but the period fixed for the begin-
ning of his mental alleniation was three years after the note was
given. The Learned Judge summed up strongly fbr the de-
indent, but the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff: ' A rule
was obtained for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence, which now came on to be argued.'
The COMMON SERGEANT chewed cause against the rule._.
The question was purely a question of fact, most fit for the
consideration of the Jury, to whom it was certainly presented
by the Learned Judge without any leaning in favour of the
plaintiff. The instances of mental aberration given were really'
futile: when vexed and teased, the old man answered as a
humourist ; but though he said he was dead, he did not act on
the motion, which was the characteristic of madness.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—That is, that he did not give
directions for his own funeral.—(A laugh.)
The COMMON SERGEANT—And if he sat as Judge, and
merely named the party who ought to succeed, what did he do
more than the celebrated Judge who decided by, the cast of the
die?

The Lorin CHIEF-JUSTICE—And of whom it is said by
Rabelais, who tells the story, that fewer of his decisions were
reversed on appeal than those of any Judge on record.—(A
laugh.)
The COMMON SERGEANT proceeded to contend that the
Court could not disturb the verdict without infringing on the
province of the Jury, who saw the demeanour of the witnesses,
and who were as much the constitutional tribunal to decide, as
the Court were to determine points of law. "Ad questionens
filen non respondeant judices" was a well-known maxim ; and.
what was this but a question of fact? He therefore submitted
that the rule should be discharged.
Mr. CLARKE proceeding to support the rule was stopped by
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE, who said—" We think, in this
case there ought to be a new trial on payment of costs. The
practice of granting new trials, which has been found highly be.'
neficial to the interests of justice, arose in the room of the oia law
of attaint, which was far less favourable to the trial by jury.. It is
impossible to look at the history of our law, without perceiving
that in ancient times the verdicts of Juries were regarded with
far greater jealousy than they are by us. I believe the improve.
ments in manners and in morals have removed in a great de-
gree the occasion for that jealousy; but I feel that the interpo-
sition of the Court, not to bring them under review, is still of
great service. When we direct a new trial, we do not say that
the verdict is wrong, but that the case ought to undergo another,
inquiry. That is all we say now ; and that we may not preju,
dice the case, we will give no opinion on its merits. The rule
must be absolute, on payment of costs by the defendant."

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 4.
Dr. HENRY V. SALISBURY, LL.D., introduced by Dr.
Arnold, having taken the usual oaths at the bar, was admitted
by Lord Stowell among the number of the advocates practisin4
in this Court.