The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-30 00:00:00

TAW VALE EXTENSION.

--
The opposition to this Bill was withdrawn, and with respect to the
other Bill, Lord Galloway stated, that in consequence of an error in
the levels he had been advised by Lord Shaftesbury to postpone the
Bill tilt to-morrow.
The Committee then adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
The House sat to-day in a Committee f Privileges. The
Peers present were the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord Lyndhurst,
Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the Marquis of t%inchester,
Lord Ranfurly, the Earl of Kinuoul, and Lord Willoughby
D'Eresby.
THE EARL OF CARBERRY'S CLAIM TO VOTE FOR THE ELEC-
TION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Counsel were heard, and witnesses examined on behalf of
the noble claimant, and the further consideration of the case
was adjourned sine die.
THE CRA\VFURD PEERAGE.
The further consideration of this claim to the Peerage of
Crawfurd was postponed, the Lord Advocate nut being ready
to proceed with the case.
THE PERTH PEERAGE.
The examination of witnesses, and the putting in of docu-
mentary evidence on behalf of the claimant to the Earldom
of Perth, occupie:l their Lordships the remainder of the
morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
His Lordship the Master of the Rolls heard petitions
:0-day, but no case of any interest came before the Court.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court in the Old Hal.
Lincoln's Inn, to-day.

DAMER V. LORD PORTARLINGTON

The Court was occupied the whole morning with a motion
in this case, to discharge an order of the Vice-Chancellor of
England refusing to stay all proceedings in the suit.

ICE-C HANCER Y fins DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour took unopposed petitions, short causes, and
cause petitions to-day.

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
CHAMBERS V. SMITH.
This cause was argued on Friday and Saturday last, and
his Honour to-day gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.
He said, after reading over the papers in the cause, the result
was the confirmation of the opinion with which at the close
of the defendants' case he was impressed ; that the conduct
of the executors in not preventing Mr. Tucker's action, and
their defending the action as they did, was improper. The
circumstance of the jury having given a verdict which
allowed him 5/. less, of which the executors at, length de-
prived him, at an expense of some 2001„ was immaterial, ex-
cept that the executors should be allowed the 5/., and be
treated as though they had paid him in full. He ordered
the defendants to pay the plaintiffs 751. 165., and the costs of
this suit, the defendants to have no costs. All other costs
were reserved.

SHERIFFS'COURT.—(THis DAY,

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff liuncrtaLL.)
ROBERTS V. DAVIS. _ _

This was an action to recover 141. 11s. 2d., the balance of
an attorney's bill.
It appeared by the evidence that the defendant was the
petitioning creditor for a fiat in bankruptcy, and the coats
had been taxed at 25/. Ils. 2d. The defendant had pleaded
that be was not indebted, but did not appear to support the
plea.—Verdict for the plaintiff.
PERRY V. STOAT'''.
labour done. The defendant pleaded that he was not
n and the defendantis a
This was an action to recover the sums of 7.15. fnoortwinodrekbatendd.
The plaintiff is a stonemasohlu.
On the part of the
licensed victualler at
thereNotting-
amehad been a contract between
d Chippett for the erection
1 se, but in May last Chippett
pthlaeindteirenidtawnatsosnhdo wonp tehroaotn o
materials and men, and an
Chippett went and told plaintiff
ofsa
entered into between them authorising de-
fendanttdhtebßots
bl dee rws
a'i:ytt Armsinnoebnpl
:uabtnpl Idc -gc; t
a eement was e
to em
oatt (defendant) had taken the work into his own
LhaantdSa,tand that defendant, on seeing plaintiff, told him to go
on with the mason's work, and he would pay him. For the
defendant, however, it was shown that about 300/. had been-
paid to Chippett, who had money advanced every week
to pay the workmen, and that Perry had himself asked for
money to be advanced to him on Chippett's account, which
was done, and defendant also advanced money to other per-
sons on Chippett's account, and the latter gave areceipt as for
money paid to him under the contract. Plaintiff did not ap-
pear to have been quite certain under whom he was working,
as he had threatened to bring actions against Chippett as
well as defendant. In reply, it was eli&ted that defendant
had told Chippett that be would charge him 11. a day as
forfeiture under the contract.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
HAWKINS V. JONES.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51. 17s. for patent
medicines supplied to the defendant, who is a bookseller, &c.,
at Derby.
The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted
beyond 18s. 3d., and that, as to e rest, he had returned the
goods.
Arthur L'rough was called, and proved that he had under-
taken to sell the plaintiff's medicines on commission, and had
had dealings with the defendant, but he could not speak
positively to the order in question, but believed he had re-
ceived an order for four dozen of Sir Henry Halford'i Royal
Family Pills and six dozen cough pills. Defendant, how-
ever, wrote to say that he had done very little with them, so
little had been done in advertising in the papers, although he
had made good use of the bills.
By Mr. THOMAS—He bad been engaged to get agents
about the country and to sell on commission, but he could
not remember how he had sold the goods. They were new
patent medicines.
Mr. Thomas—You do not mean to say that you could
fua4 jaeople to buy new pills ?
Witness—Oh, yes, a good many.
'rho LTeDrat-Sarairr-.Can you swallow that Uri Thom?