The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-14 00:00:00

A LAMENT FOR ST. VALENTINE'S DAY•

HUMBLYDEDICATEDThe
birds
are ng- i
And fools are flinging all thought away,
To talk of reason is sheer high treason,
For 'tis St. Valentine's holyday :
•
Age here and there, youth every where
Appears, I swear, with a blush to glow,
All keep with glee love's jubilee,
sißl ngm, Ai
theT T
nObUesli MISSIs Al'l•
are
Save you and me, Miss Martineau!
We're vexed and sad to think how mad,
Folks now so glad will months hence be,
And in this fond show read the overthrow
Of our sage Malthusian theory :
Eyes now look sunny, lips taste of honey,
For matrimony is all the go ;
But when all this fun its course has run,
Oh! what's to be done, Miss Martineau ?
Those family ills, long butchers' bills,
And doctors' pills, with nought to pay,
Will blight full soon Love's honeymoon,
And change the tune of this holydaY
Papa will swear, Mamma will tear
Her auburn hair, while, woe on woe !
Some grim old broker, as stiff' as a poker,
Pops in for rent, Miss Martineau! 1;
Oh, maiden sage ! will this dull age
Ne'er read thy page, which aptly proves
The swift undoings that follow the cooings•
And frantic wooings of cashless loves ?
Methinks I hear, some matron near,
But married a year last spring, cry " Oh
Would, dearest Ned, we ne'er had wed,
But studied, instead, Miss Martineau!"
If legal powers, Miss M., were ours, "
We'd pawn or sell " Love's golden car,*
Burke all the Nine, and expunge malign
St. Valentine from the calendar :
In amorous rhyme no bard should chime,
For 'tis a crime, though fools say " No ;"
For when did such verse prove aught but a curse
To a poor man's purse, Miss Martineau ?
* Vide, Dryden. ringing,MAitT INEAti.

....------ -
COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.:
_......--_

MACKINNON V. SUARPE.
The Court proceeded with the further arguments in this
case.
VICE.CHANCERY COURT.-(TIIIS DAV

His Honour, the VICE-CHANCELLOR, gavel
GIBLET V. uoBsoN—JUDGMENT.
in this case, the facts of which we stated at the time the cause
was argued. The question involved was as to the validity o
gift to the Butchers' Company of 5,000/. by a gentleman nanle4t.
Greaves, for the mirpose of building certain almshouses. f
the time the legacy was given a gentleman of the name 0,
Kempt had volunteered to furnish the land, but he had 10
perfected that gift by deed. Subsequently, hoWever'
the gift was made complete, but the executor;
of Mr. Greaves refused to pay the legacy, alleging that there
being no land actually vested in the Company at the time of the
gift, the legacy was void. The Butchers' Company therefore
filed the preile.it bill for the purpose of enforcing paynient.
His Honour went elaborately through the facts of the case'
in the course of which he cited many authorities on the so l''
ject, and concluded by observing, that although as a marl "
could entertain no doubt what the intentions of Dir"
udgMent to.dal
Greaves were, yet as a Judge, he was bound to decide the,
case as the law at present stood, and according to t 113,.
law he was of opinion that the legacy could not be sustaineo
He should therefore dismiss the bill, but considering that the
question in dispute was one so fit to be brought before the
Court he would dismiss it without costs.