The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-24 00:00:00

ROYAL ARTILLERY.

WOOLWICH, SEPT. 22.—0 n Monday Driver George Par-
ker, of the Rocket troop, Royal Horse Artillery, having been
previously found guilty by a General Court-martial of stealing
a piece of sponge, and of having been repeatedly guilty of other
aggravated acts of theft, which could not he brought so clearly
home to him as to insure conviction, although there was not
the slightest doubt of his being the guilty party, was brought
from the guard-house in front of all the men off duty, who
were assembled to witness him drummed out of the regiment
as unworthy of being retained any longer in her 31ajesty's ser-
vice. The red collar of his coat and the red stripe on his trou-
sers were torn off immediately after the sentence of the Court-
martial was read, and the unworthy member of the corps was
marched along the line, the drummers beating the " Rogue's
March" after him until he was escorted out of the bounds of
the garrison at the south-west gate, where he was set at liberty,
apparently without the slightest regret on the part of his for-
mer comrades.

On the same day Michael Jamieson, 9th battalion, was re-
moved to the Warrior convict-ship, stationed opposite the
dock-yard, having been sentenced by a General Court-martial
to 12 years' transportation for desertion when his company was
on the eve of embarkation to the Isle of France, and for his
gene'sl bad character, and making away with his kit and neces-
saries. There can be no doubt these salutary examples will
have a very beneficial effect, and the regiment will be well rid
of two worthless characters, who have been often pardoned ;
aid yet it appeared to the last, their great object has been to
brir.g discredit on the corps, and bring their comrades into
trouble, which will now be averted.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Sept. 23.
JOHNSON V. COCHRANE—JUDGMENT.
Lord COTTENHAM gave judgment to-day in this case, which
came before the House some time since upon appeal from the
decision of the Court ,f Session. The question in the case
was whether General Hamilton, who became entitled to an
entail, created in 1719, had the power to create a new entail,
he having executed a deed for that purpose in 1802. The
appellant claunedunder the entail of 1719, and it was contended
on his behalf that General Hamilton had not the power which
he had exercised. The Court of Session decided in favour of
General Hamilton, and from that decision the appellant ap-
pealed to the House of Lords. The Noble and Learned Lord
was clearly of opinion that the judgment of the Court below
was correct, and ordered the interlocutors appealed from to be
affirmed, with costs.---Judgment affirmed, with costs.
IRVINE AND LORD DOUGLAS V. KIRKPATRICK.
Lprd coTTENzu xt also gave judgment in this Scotch appeal,
the question in which was as to the sufficiency of the parties to
the suit. The suit was instituted for the purpose of setting
aside certain deeds which had beep executed by several young
ladies named Douglas, by which they sold their interest
in cer-
tsin estates in Scotland to their brother Walter. The Court
of Session decided that the parties to the suit were sufficient,
and from that decision the parties appealed. Lord Cottenham
was clearly of opinion the interlocutors appealed from were
correct, and ordered them to be affirmed, with costs.
It is generally supposed that Lord Cottenham interds to
give one or two judgm.nts every day next week that the House
sits, in order to clear off his arrear of judgments iu Scotch
and English appeals.