The Sun.
London, England, 1823-02-04 00:00:00

instrument creating him s propTietor legal tplalifications were in-
troduced. Stewirt and Street had the power to limit those rights
and privileges ; and if their deed of assignment to Wm. Stewart
contained no such limits, then he., must be entitled to the
whole. There was no such limits found in the deed, therefore
William Stewart was.entilled to the right of pre-emption. In
considering the true construction of the deed, -tbe Court was
bound.to reject all parol evidence ; the intention of the parties,
m
must be learned from the deed itself; but on the question
of costs the same principle did not apply ; the Court was
bound to take into consideration the answer of the defend.
unts. He was satisfied that at the time of the sale to
the plaintiff they had not the right of pre-emption in con-
templation ; and it was by no means certain that the plaintiff
had," but it was certain he did not mention it, nor in any
way bring it under the consideration of the defendants. The
original bill makes also a claim of deduction in the original
price paid by the plaintiff for his shares, which claim he had
failed to establish ; the decree should therefore be made without
costs. The cross bill prayed that the sale to the plaintiff might
be rescinded : for that prayer there appeared to be no reason-
able grounds, that bill must therefore be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 3.
Mr. STORKS moved for a rule to show cause why an attorney
of the Court, whose name for the present he would forbear to
mention, should not be struck off the rolls, for acting 'as agent
to an unqualified person in the country, and why that person,
whose name also, he would conceal, should not be committed
for his offence ; and why a cognovit, given to that person,
should not be delivered up to the defendant against whom the
proceedings were taken. The party who acted as principal was
not an attorney, but only a conveyancer; and he,and his agent
in town had both been concerned in the conduct of a suit,
which they bad settled by taking payment of the debt, and a
cognovit for the costs: The Court granted a rule to show cause.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION-LIIIEL.

Mr. MARRYAT showed cause against* rule obtained by Mr.
Scarletti why a criminal, informatton should not issue against
two persons of the names of Hargrave and Mott, for the publi-
cation of a series of libels in the Brighton. Herald; also, for.
circulating a printed notice in the town of Brighton, threaten-
ing to take into consideration the*conduct of the Magistrates.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE demanded if the matter could
not be brought to an amicable adjustment.
Mr. SCAIILETT stated, that his clients were not then pre-
sent, but he, as their Counsel, would undertake to say, they
would be willing to accede to any suggestions that should come
from the Court. The Learned Counsel could only express a
wish that the further discussion might be allowed to stand over
until a communication should take place between the parties,
whether they would accede to the suggestion of the amicable
adjustment proposed by the Court.
The Court permitted the motion to stand over, in hopes that
in the mean time the parties might think better of it, and come
to sonic private adjustment.