The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-29 00:00:00

of the people those who, under a pretence of
redressing grievances, would tempt them into
crime !—Morning Herald.

The journalists who from principle, or from
interest, or from compassion, continue to sa
evil things of the Ministers, of whose measures
no civil things can be said, have, by this time,
with one accord, given up all hope of defend-
ing Mr. Stanley's scheme for enslaving the
West India proprietors. It admitted to be
wrong in principle, and wrong in detail ; wrong
where it advances, and wrong where it stops
short ; wrong where it inflicts loss, and wrong
where it proffers compensation. The advocates
of the Government, conscious of the impos-
sibility of maintaining the position which has
been so unfortunately occupied, valiantly attempt
the offensive. "It is very true," they say,
that your arguments against our plan are con-
clusive. We cannot refute Sir B. Martin, nor
contend with Mr. Horsley Palmer. But it is not
the less clear that by one scheme or another your
property is to he plundered, and Your rights
destroyed. And since you do not like the

scheme, which is the hest that Downing-street
can devise for the purpose, we call upon you to
ruin yourselves after your own fashion, and to

suggest to us a scheme of your own." Cer-
vantes represents a band of robbers bantering
after this cruel fashion an honest traveller whom
they have tied to a tree. They mean to hang
him ; of that there is neither doubt nor di.pute ;
but they have but two ropes, one of them un-
questionably too long for their purpose, the
other undeniably too short. It' the traveller
should happen to have a rope in his wallet they
will adopt it, kind gentlemen, with pleasure.
We believe that the King's Ministers are deter-
mined to sacrifice the West India proprietor ;
and we thi..k that he would gain just as much
by the swzgestion of his plan as the traveller by
the production of his halter.—Morning Poat.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 28.

HODSON v. TERRILL.

Mr. Sergeant CiOULBURN and Mr. HILL showed
cause on the part of the defendant against a rule
obtained by Mr. Humfrey for setting aside a non-
suit in this action, which was tried at the last Lent
A-s;zes at Warwick, before the Lord Chief Justice
Denman, and which was brought to recover 201.
from the defendant, who was stakeholder on a
cricket match between the Birmingham and Wa.-
wick Clubs. The rule Nisi for setting aside the
nonsuit was chiefly granted upon the 2d section of
9 Anne, c. 14.
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN and Mr. HILL now con-

tended that tricker was not an illegal game, to which
Mr. Ba on BAYLEY assented ; and that betting was
not per se illegal, hut only made so by the stature,
and that this section not mentioning the game of
cricket, could nor be supposed to mean cricket.
Mr. BAYLEY, without calling upon Mr. Hum-
trey, was proceeding to deliver judgment, and said
—I cannot come to the conclusion I am forming
with any peculiar comfort, because I am sorry any
impediment should be thrown in the way of that
which is a fine manly game; but if I find it comes
within the statutes against gaming, and that the se-
cond clause of the statute of Anne comprehends all
games, the result must be that the present rule must
be made absolute. The clause, however, does not
make that an illegal game, which in itself is not
illegal, but it prevents betting on such game to an
illegal amount. It is the excess of the stake, or
the excess of the bet, that introduces the illegality.
The Learned Baron then read the second section,
" that any person who shall at any time or sitting."
Mr. HlLL—This match was two days.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY—The difficulty is whether
the money was won at one sitting.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN—If dinner bad intervened,
it would have made no difference, but here there
were two days.

Mr. HLTMFREY—If the company never part, that
is considered as one sitting.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY said this point came upon
him by surprise, and therefore the Court would call
upon Mr. Humfrey to maintain his rule.
Mr. HUMFREY—Before the event was decided

the plaintiff claimed his share of the stakes. He
admitted that he had lost the deposit of .51., and
claimed only 151. It does not appear that the
game was decided, or that the Warwick Club had
won the match ; and if they have not won it, the
plaintiff is entitled to recover the 151.
Mr. Baron BAYLEY—There is no doubt of that.
We will refer it to the Lord Chief Justice to say
whether it was proved that the match had been won.
As to the other point, as it came upon me by sur-
prise, you may have time to argue that.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, MAY 28.

HULL V. MACKAY,.

This case came on before his Lordship at the
late sittings at Gray's Inn-hall.
The plaintiff was the Rev. John Hull, one of two
sons, ar►d residuary legatee tinder the will of Mr.
Christopher Hull. The testator was a professional
man, residing in the Temple, possessing also a
house called Sidcup-house, in Kent, and other pro-
per►y. The defendants were General Robert
Mackay and Jane, his w►fe. Mackay took on him-
self, during the minority of the plaintiff and his
brother, to act as their guardian. He was also a
-übstituted trustee under the will of the testator.
Th►e other defendant was a Mr. John Miles Win-
nington, who was merely a trustee for Mrs.
Mackay, under a deed which among others was
sought to be set aside. The bill prayed that various
documents and certain deeds and securities specified
in the prayer might be set aside, and for an account of
the estate and effects of the testator, Christopher
Hull, come under the power and control of the de-
fendant, Robert Mackay, as well as other goods, the
property of the plaintiff, come into the possession of
Mackay and wife, and applied to their own use, al-
lowing Mackay such money as lie might have pro-
perly disbursed, and for an account charging him
with certain sums enumerated in the prayer; and
hat Mackay might be charged 1701. a-year as an
occupation rent for the house at Sirieup, and such
moneys as the plaintiff had paid to James Vosper,
otherwise Rich, and other persons of that name, and
that subsidiary accounts might be taken, and the ba-
lance due to the plaintiff ascertained and paid. The
Learned Counsel (Mr. Simpkinson) then detailed,
at some length, the facts of the case, after which,
Mr. BIAGI' proceeded to read cer ain passages in
the defe►►dant's answers and the evidence, which he
continued to do,

When his LORDSHIP postponed the case till Sa-
:urday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MAN SI 0 N- H 0 USE.
ApTlication was made to the LORD MAYOR
yesterday upon an occasion of a very uncommon de-
•cription.

Some time ago a poor woman, the wife of a per-
son who resides at Exeter, was delivered of two
still-born children, united in the same manner as
a•ere the Siamese twins. The parents of the twins
being indebted to a surgeon in the sum of 171. or
18/., the bodies were placed amongst his curiosities,
,ye understood, as a sort of security for the amount
of the debt. Some time afterwards the strange
birth having excited a great deal of interest and in-
quiry, the surgeon sold the bodies for a more con-
•iderable sum than that which would have dis-
charged his bill. The purchase was made by a
pawn who was also a professional man, and as the
fame of the conjoined bodies increased, the new
buyer thought it would be advisable to convey his
bargain to London, where curiosity was often in
dulged at a most extravagant price, and either to
exhibit them to the public or dispose of them to one