The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-29 00:00:00

agree in the opinion of_ a contemporary Jour-
nal, that i►t states the fact of the Duke of'
Montmorency having, at, Verona, 'pledged the
French Government to conform to the policy of.
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, in all'that, relates
to Spain (for this febrile assent to the dictation.
of :Russia and Austria:the Duke was dis-
missed); but that his Majesty does not aban-
don the hope that peace between the two coun-
tries may be maintained. We were the first
to detect and to reprobate the attempt of
the. two Emperors to make use of the great
French nation as gladiators/ and to command-
them to fight for their pleasure. It is now
an acknowledged fact. It is now universally
known to be as unprincipled and arrogant an
interference with the internal government of
France as with that of Spain. Happily, we
trust, for the repose of Europe and the progress
of national liberation, the French Government,
violently restored and violently sustained as it is,
has sufficient discernment of its own interest, if
not of its dignity, to,resist imperial commands.—
Its own existence is at stake. See the degrada-
tion of a liberal' and gallant nation. The Go.
vernment is commanded by Emperors who make
war against revolution, to lead the French into
a war' which hazards its existence and almost en-
sures its destruction, because the Emperors think
that the love of military glory will so far blind
the French nation as to induce them to fight
against a neighbouring nation, who have abated
an; intolerable nuisance, and rendered their poli-
tical institutions consistent with' public happi-
ness. Should the French nation perform this
grateful service, the Emperors are quite willing
to let them have young Napoleon, or any other
despot of their own choice.

LAW INTELLIGE.NCE''.
COURT OF CHANCatY, JAR. 28.

BEER :J. WARD.—JUDOMENT.
:This case has been long in progress through the Courts of
Law. It arose from the following circumstances :—A person
named William Cotton had continued in a state of lunaey from
1763 down to 1819, when he died.' The person who was to
take the estates in litigation after him was disturbed in hit pos..
session by the next of kin Of the predecessor, who clairaed,on
the ground that the lunatic was not the legitimate son of
William Cotton, and that the heirs of Evelyn Rowland Cotton,
who was the legitiMate offspring, were entitled. It appeared
from the numerous proceedings which had taken place, that
the lunatic was the son of a. William Cotton, who wall the son
of a Rowland Cotton, of an ancient and respectable family in
Shropshire. This William Cotton married a woman named
Rebecca Webster. A register produced showed a marriage to
have been solemnized in 1742. The lunatic was proved to have
been baptized in 1740. It followed, if this were the first mar-
riage that he was illegitimate. It was however set up that this
was the second marriage ; because, the first having been a
secret one, the parents wished to remove doubts which attached
to it, by the second. There was a settlement made by the fa-
ther in 1746, in which the four children then living of NVilliatn
Cotton, the father of the lunatic were treated as legitimate.—
The verdict in a trial at, law had, notwithstanding the last
named circumstance, declared the lunatic to be illegitimate.—,
This verdict had occasioned a motion before his Lordship for
a new trial, and under this motion, the proceedings which have
been of late reported to the public took place.
The Loan CIIaNCELLOIt, after taking a review of all the
circumstances and pleadings, was of opinion that there must be
a new trial. The former verdict had determined the illegiti-
macy of the lunatic, by finding the marriage of' 1742, and the
baptism of the lunatic in 1740. This issue did not give enough
consideration to the motives which might, by possibility, have
induced the parents to effect a secret marriage before that of
1742, to which the marriage of 1742 was only intended to be
an affair of public confirmation.' Certain it was that secret
marriages were at that time very frequent. The settlement of
17.16 had an air of forgiveness for some seemingly existing de.
feet in the circumstances of the marriages. But there the chil,
aro were treated as legitiMate. lie would have it put to the
Jury, on the new trial, to say whether there might not have
been a marriage previous to that of 1742; and whether the
*settlement of 1746 would not afford an inference that those
doubts hid been cleared up, and all- the offences against the
'feelings and opinions of the testator and his family done
away. In directing the new trial, he would also direct the
:Secretary of Lunatics to produce all the papers and proceeding*
of ever, kind in the Master's Office, . without further order on
the trial.'
Mr. WEntrattr.v. asked, if the trial should take place in
the Court of Common Pleas.
, The Loan Citastitt ton said no, it had better be tried in
the Court of King's Bench ; and in saying that, he was anxious
to observe, that he had never known of a trial which was con.
ducted with more ability than bad been shown by the Learned
Judge who tried the former issue.

VI43E-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, J. 28.
wirss v. TOAD AND °vans.
This was a ease in which a great variety of parties were in.
terested, and many Counsel appeared. It was a bill filed by
the plaintiff, praying that the defendant might be compelled to
adhere to the agreement entered into between tie parties, and
it also prayed an injunction to restrain the defendants from
building any houses contrary to the places agreed upon. 'ln
1792, an agretanent was entered into between a Mr. Portman
and Mr. Harcourt for the purchase of certain lands in Moyle-
bone. Upon this ground houses were to be built, forming a
street called York-street, which was to be sixty feet in width.
Thcfplaintilf agreed with Harcourt to take a piece of his land,
upon the understanding that, the atfeet was to be sixty feet
wide, and built a house at the corner of. York-street. Since.
that dine various buildings had been erected, and the street.
had been narrowed more titan six. feet.
Mr. MALI) was.procceeding to state his case, when an ob-
jection was raised .that the suit must be abated, one of the de-
fendants (Mr. Rutherford) hiving died since its commence-
ment,
The ViCE-cit Alf cELT.OIt directed that ' a bill of reviver
should be tiled, and that when the parties were ready, the
case should bementioned to.the Court.
• • milli u. TatittAltT.
The plaintiff sued in fornics pauper's. and had filed a bill
for an account to be taken in a certain brewery concern, in
which himself and the defendant were interested.
:Air. Ho itNE objected to the account being taken, because the
plaintiff was a pauper, and had no chance. of obtaining; one
shilling even it' the accounts were taken.
The 'lffcr-CtiAxcrt.i.on said, that all that was necessary
to be shewn was, that the party was entitled to,aoaceount, and
it was no answer to assert that the plaintiff could' get nothing
by the 'scrutiny.
Hpittat suggested the great hardship upon the defend-
ant, Who in any case-Wes compelled to pay the costa. - •
' The Vicfl.ClisuerrAtie was aware of no authority which*
gave power to the Court to act upon one principle with re-
, spect to a rich man, and on another with regard to a pau-
per. He was therefore afraid he must allow the prayer of the,
premenvbill., •
------- -

. , Trepwrß v. BUTTS.
This was a supplemental bill filed by certain legatees, under
a will to make a child, born after the commencement .ofa suit,
Et 'party to it. _ 'The. Aptestioti
,here was, with respect to the
construction of the will, whether the words 1' children born
in my life.time" excluded or included a child en %Yentre la
mere. •
14Ir. !?XlitROW vital authorities to anew that an infant Cu
pentre ad mere was included in the words " ehilfiren livingat
the death of the testator ;" and contended that.the-words con.
taitied in the present will, " born in my life time, pore pre-
cisely' the blame meaning as '' living at the testator's death."
The case of Clarke and Blake, 2d Brown, p. was par-
ticularly in' point, and " Lancaster and Lancaster," 7 '1 errs
Ire torts.
Mr. Wtyttettw, on the other band, maintained that the
Word bring would admit of a much more extended meaning
than the word honi. •
The !VICZ.CSISWirEti.on was of the ttetne °Plni°,l)- It
was evident .that a child might be though . not ohm at
the time of the testator's death. lid Would -be glad to bear
any.atitheritits cited Which would ,bear.upon the question bow
far =the general intentions of the vary had been considered; for
here he was satisfied, that in the testator's mind thert could
be but One meaning. The Court, hOwever, must be bound by
principle*.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, .28.
/OWliEit V. BAWFOII%
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 30W. of which
the plaintiff was the endorsee, tuid the defendant the acceptor.