The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-16 00:00:00

ISTRIA.

The Osservatore Triestino of the 6th instant
appears to be apprehensive of a revolt of the &la-
vonie population of the province of Istria, for the
attainment of national independence, inasmuch
as it devotes two columns to a leading article on the
subject, demonstrating the inestimable advantages de-
rived by Istria from its union with Trieste, and depre-
cating, in the most energetic terms, any attempt on
the part of the Sclaves to effect a separation. It ap-
pears that the province of Istria is divided into two
distinct classes, the inhabitants of the cities and
those of the rural districts. The former are Italians
by language, customs, historical reminiscences,
monuments, and, in short, everything that consti-
tutes nationality. The latter are Sclaves, who esta-
blished themselves as colonists with the consent of
the Venetian Republic when the primeval inhabi-
tants had been almost entirely extirpated by wars
and pestilence. The first represent the intelligence
of Italy; the latter still sleep in the arms of Russia,
and have always obstinately resisted any fusion with
the Italians. Should this ignorant multitude rise in
insurrection, a dreadful civil war would he the in-
evitable consequence, according to the Osservatore
Triestino.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
This being the last day of Trinity Term, the Lord
Chancellor heard appeal motions and appeals to-day.

ST. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, in which the arguments were concluded yesterday.
The case came before his Lordship upon appeal from the
judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of England, allowing
a general demurrer to the plaintiff's bill for want of
equity. The plaintiff, who sued in forma pauperis, by
his bill, filed in May, 1843, claimed to be entitled to a
portion of money awarded as compensation in respect of
an estate called La Roche Talbot, which had been con-
fiscated during the French revolution. The estate in
question was mortgaged to a large amount in the year
1777 by the then owner, Fanning, an English subject,
and in the year 1791, during the French revolution,
was confiscated by the French authorities. Under
the conventions made with France in the year 1814,
funds were set apart for compensation to ,be
awarded to English subjects whose property had
been confiscated during the French revolution.
In pursuance of these Acts of Parliament the defendant
Devereux preferred a claim to the Commissioners, as
executor, in respect of the property confiscated, and ob-
tained an award of upwards of 24,0001. fur the portion
of the estate confiscated, the arrears of rents, and the
personalty or moveables confiscated. The plaintiff's
claim was founded upon his being a judgment creditor
in respect of money advanced upon credit to the estate
confiscated, and therefore the bill prayed that it might
bo liquidated out of the sum awarded as compensation.
The demurrer for want of equity was supported on the
grounds—first, that the treaty giving the compensation
was limited entirely to English subjects, and that the
interest of the plaintiff, who is a French subject, did
not enter into it, and that the Court had no jurisdiction
to give to a French subject what was wholly intended
for an English subject; and secondly, that the decision
of the Commissioners, who had decided against the
claim, was final except in cases of fraud or trust, and no
case of fraud or trust had been even raised by the bill.
The Vice-Chancellor allowed the demurrer, and from
this order the plaintiff appealed. The Lord Chancellor,
in giving judgment to-day, went at some length into the
facts of the case and the authorities bearing upon the
subject, especially those of Lord Eldon and Sir John
Leach. It was clear to him that the compensation fund
was intended for English subjects and English subjects
only, and such being the case, the plaintiff being a
Frenchman, was not entitled to any participation in it.
The judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
allowing the demurrer, must therefore be affirmed with
costs.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
MOTT V. THE BLACEWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.
PRENDERGAST V. LUEMINGTON.
These appeals, which stood on his Lordship's paper
to-day for hearing were postponed to a future day, in
consequence of the absence of the Solicitor-General,
from indisposition.

CARTER V. BARNARD.
The arguments in this case, which came before the
Court, upon a petition of rehearing, against the decree
of the Vice-Chancellor of England, occupied the Court
the whole day.
NEW ORDERS.—The following orders have been is-
sued within the last few days with reference to the re-
cently passed Act relative to trustees. The orders are
signed by the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the
Rolls.

" Any trustee desiring to pay money, or transfer stock
or securities, into the name of the Accountant-General
of the Court of Chancery, is to file an affidavit, entitled
in the matter of the est and of the trust, setting forth—
First, his own name and address; secondly, where he is
to be served with. any petition, or any notice of any