The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-23 00:00:00

TEA MARKET.

The Market was in a dull state, and prices had a down.
ward tendency. Free Trade Company's Congou flat at
2s 3id cash.

TALLOW MARKET.

A fair demand existed for Russian Tallow, and prices
were firm at 47s 9d, to 48s, on the spot for P. Y. Candle,
Town Tallow sold at 50s 6d to sls per cwt.
WATERSIDE POTATOE MARKET.

There was a large supply of potatoes during last week.
The cold weather induced the buyers to come forward
more freely, and a brisk demand was experienced for all
kinds at full rates, indeed in some instances choice sorts
produced a small advance.

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

THE CASE OF' THE EARL OF CARDIGAN
AND CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.

It will be recollected, that at the last Session of the
Court, the trial of the Earl of Cardigan and Captain
Douglas was postpcned, on account of its being considered
advisable that the case of the Noble Earl should b• first
disposed of before that of the accessory was brought for-
ward. The recognizances were accordingly respited to
this Session.

Mr. Ano.r.rnes applied to the Court this morning for a
further respite of the recognizances of the parties. The
indictment against the Noble Earl had not yet been re-
moved by certiorari, and it was not known when the trial
could take place. The same inconvenience in reference to
the accessory still existed, and therefore he had to move
the Court that the recognizances of the Noble Earl and
his bail be further respited till the next Session.
Mr. Serjcant ARABIN said the Court had no objection
to the course proposed.
Mr. BODKIN then said he had a similar application to
that made by his: friend, Mr. Adolphus, to make on be-
half of Captain Douglas and his sureties.
Mr. Serjcant ARABIN—The application must be granted
as a matter of course.

The sureties were accordingly respited until the next
session.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY).

The Lord Chancellor, on coming into Court this morn.
ing, gave the following judgments :

WILLIAMS V. OWEN.
In 1831 the plaintiff, Richard Williams, was absolutely
entitled to the property in question, and was at that time
indebted to the defendant in the sum of 2001., which was
secured by a bond of the plaintiff's father; and on the
14th June, 1821, the plaintiff's father contracted for the
sale of certain premises, consisting of eight small cottages
occupied by labourers, to the defendant, with liberty to re-
purchase. To set aside this conveyance was the object
of the present bill. The defendant took possession imme-
diately after the execution of the conveyance, the plaintiff's
father died within 3 years afterwards, and left the plaintiff his
heir who became of age before the filing of the bill. The de-
fendant insisted the transaction was a sale, with an agree-
ment to repurchase, which was never acted upon. The
plaintiff insisted it was a mortgage, and such was the
opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, from whose decision the
defendant appealed.
The LORD CRAN VELLOR, in giving judgment, oh•
served that part of the plaintiff's case was, that the con-
veyance was prepared by the defendant's attorney, but
that would give nothing except in aid of a case of fraud,
which was not attempted to be made out; on the contrary,
whatever might have been the intention of the parties,
there was no doubt they tripled the agreement with the
full knowledge of its contents. His Lordship was of opi-
nion the plaintiff had not established any title to relief, or
to enforce the contract for a repurchase. The bill must
therefore be dismissed with costs.