The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-27 00:00:00

knocked on the head.by any body without being
called to account, or rather with a claim of merit
in having done so. It is not humanely possible
that such a state of things should exist in Spain,
or in any country under Heaven, long. Yet
there is no appearance of any particular crisis or
catastrophe at the present moment.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 26.

JUDGMENT.
GOURLAY, v. DUKE OF SOMERSET.

His LORDSHIP, in' making some preliminary observations
respecting this Case, before he proceeded in what be considered
his judgment, again complained of not having been properly
furnished with affidavits, respecting the identity of the plans
that were produced at the trials. He also wished, that much
of the language which had been used when the case was
last argued, had not been used. His Lordship then pro.
ceeded to enter at great length into the matters before
him. In the first place he begged to intimate, that much had
been submitted to the Court in the argument of which no no-
tice could be taken, as it was quite irrelevant to any thing
that appeared on the record. In the course of the year 1809,
the Duke, having a wish to introduce the Scottish manner of
agriculture into Wiltshire, entered into an agreement with Mr.
Gourlay, who was a Gentleman of great respectability in the
county of Fife, North Britain, and possessing much agricul-
tural knowledge. Mr. Gourlay was to take possession of the
lands and premises of Deptford Farm, in Wilts, in October,
1809, which he was to hold for the term of twenty-one years,
at the rent of 6001. a year for the first seven years—and at,
an additional rent during the remaining period. In the
agreement a clause was inserted, authorising Mr. Gourlay to
make certain alterations and improvements on the premises,
to the amount of two hundred pounds, or to so much more
as might be thought proper and necessary—the whole being
first submitted and approved of by the Duke or his agent,
Mr. John Gale. It happens to be the custom in Wiltshire
that outgoing tenants retain possession of the premises of
which they were tenants for a certain time after the term of
their lease expires—and this was what first gave rise to quar-
relling between these parties. Mr. Gourlay complained of
not having been let into full possession in the month of Oc-
tober, 1809, for in that month he was only let into poisession
of the lands—and, having brought his wife and family from
Scotland, in the expectation of being then also let into pos.
session of the farm-house, &c., which, however, he did not
get until the July following, lie was put to considerable
expence and inconvenience. From that moment, instead of
amity having grown, discord waxed stronger and stronger,
until Mr. Gourlay filed his bill of complaint in this Court,
when two issues were directed to be tried ; the first was, to
try whether any, and if any, what sum was due to the plain-
tiff for not having been let into full possession of all the pre-
mises in the month of October, 1809. The plaintiff claimed
200/.—The issue was tried before Mr. Justice Park, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1001, which
never afterwards was quarrelled with. The next issue direct-
ed was to try what the plaintiff was entitled to in considera-
tion of repairs and improvements on the farm, and to this
issue the Jury found for the Duke entirely. A motion was
afterwards made in the year 1816, on the part of Mr. Gour_
lay, before the Master of the Rolls, for a new trial, and Sir
William Grant, on hearing the case laid before him, was of
opinion, that he ought to direct a new trial of the second
issue, which he accordingly did. It then came to be tried
before Mr. Justice Holroyed, when the Jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff to the amount of 1,325/. and to a further
amount of 6351. subject to William Grant's opinion (if the
case should be again brought under his consideration), whe-
ther this amount had been laid out with the privity and
approbation of Mr. Gale, according to the true intent and
meaning of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
The case did again come before the Master of the Rolls, who
was of opinion that the plaintiff was fully entitled to the 1,3001.
and a fraction, but that he was not entitled to the 6001. and a
fraction. After this confirmation of Sir William- Grant's, the
Noble Defendant considering himself aggrieved, lodged his
beappealfore the
the
Court. Lord
appealwh
theich nowwpoauusgketo *have t complains,th of the
a been left
proceeding
original decree in 1815, contending no issue ought to- have
be b directed at all, for the -plaintiff ought
to have brought his action. It appeared to his Lordship ab-
solutely necessary, in deciding this case, to go through the
whole of the record, and accordingly he stated, with great
minuteness, the original /And amended bills, the answers, the
agreement, the depositions on both sides, the evidence given
at the trials, and the different reports that had been made by
the Masters. At half-past one his Lordship completed his
statements of the record, and declared that, to the best of his
ability, equal justice should be done to the parties in this cause,
as well as in all other causes, let their difference of situation be
what it may ; but his LordshiP was too fatigued to conclude
his observations, and therefore he postponed what he had fur-
ther to say, till Wednesday morning ; by that time the Court
wished to know if any person could swear the plans now before
the Court were not the plans that had been exhibited at the
trials, and therefore to contradict Mr. Gourlay's affidavit.
Mr. HART said he knew now that nobody could made an
affidavit that they were not the affidavits.
His LORDSHIP then thought it must be taken for granted
that these were the plans.
Mr. Gourlay then begged to make an observation or two, the
amount of which was, that he had ever since• Christmas been
living on the charity of some Ladies, which he only accepted
on certain conditions, and which he would not have accepted
from men, for
Pity melts the soul to love ;"
and as he now had only one shilling in the world, nor knew
particularlyH
isLoibwsilithlp, respect
to raise another, he wished to know what he was to do,
spineclteetovihnigs beingtheCourt , said ,it was not his
able to sue as a pauper.
duty to instruct any suitor how to proceed, but he felt satisfied
that any Gentleman at the Bar would give Mr. G. any advice
he stood in need of.
Mr. Gourlay-Bait 111 present a regular petition respecting
that to-morrow.

TICE-CHA7NA
yC
LEOLRLAONRD' S
WATERS.
•
COURT,
An application was made by Mr. HEALD in this case to his
Honour to subject the Master's Report to a revision. The
Opera House to the estate of the late Signor
Master had reported that a sum of 956/. was due by the former
Proprietors of the
Naldi. The Report had been confirmed, and his present mo-
tion was, that on the ground that the account was irregularly
taken, the Report should. be
Mr. SirGDE:g opposed the subjmotionected to a revision.
, and urged the delay that
had intervened between the Report and the present tardy appli-
cation.
The'VICE-CHANCELLOR—In this case there has been
great, and apparently- unauthorised delay. I cannot, however,
at present determine upon the reasons that induced it. For the
purpose of hearing, therefore, Mr. Taylor's explanation as to
its cause, I shall permit it to stand over.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 26.
PERUVIAN LOAN.
XINDERT AND CO. V. EVERITT AND Co..
This was.an action .brought by the plaintiff's, who are Con-
tractors for the Pernvian Loan, to recover. from the defendants,
who are bankers, certain instalments paid by the subscribers td
the defendants on account of this. Loan. The plaintiff's obtained
a verdict for 75.0001.
MT. ATTORNEY-GENERAL this day moved for a Rule
calling upon the plaintiffs to shew cause why the verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial had. The ground relied upon
in support of the motion was, that the powers of the persons
who, acted in.this country as Envoys of the Peruvian Govern-
ment, had been revoked before they gave authority to the
plaintiffs to receive the instalments from the defendants. The
Learned Cotinsel observed that many imputations had been cast
upon the defendants ; but they were ready to pay over the in-
stalments to whatever persons the Court should declare'entitled
to receive them ; and in order to shew that they had no object
except their own security in withholding the payment of this
money, they would allow Exchequer Bill interest upon it up to
the day of the decision of the Cc.:rt, stating to whom the money
should be paid over.
Mr. Bit o u Gli A st, for theplaintiffs, said they would he satis-
fied if the Court would direct that the money should be laid out
in Exchequer bills, to be lodged in the Bank of England.
The COURT refused to make such an order, lest some dif-
ficulty might arise in getting thernoney out of the hands of a
third party ; besides, such an order would cast upon the cha-
racter of the defendants an imputation which the circumstances
of the case did not warrant.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I must say that many impu-
tations which were not supported by the evidence were cast
upon the defendants.—Rule granted.

THE KING v. BASTONE, ESQ.
This was a rule calling on_ the defendant a Magistrate of
Yorkshire, to show cause why a criminal information should
not be exhibited against him for illegally committing the pro-
secutors to prison.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, said he believed that the
prosecutors were satisfied that a complete answer was given to
the. charge, and that the. rule- must be discharged ; Mr. Bas-
tone, however, dtd.not press for costs.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the prosecutibn,. admitted that he