The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-03 00:00:00

and so on in proportion.

No Litters orTackets for Foreign'Fits can 3e forwarded un-
less the, full Postalge it first paid at t6C Offce -where such Letters
or Packets are pain. ALLPersotts 'are required to take particu-
lar notice theretf, 119 prevent the necessity of their Letters being
opened, to be returned fir the- Poi:tar.

By Command if His 74 lajegy:s,Pestmaster-General,
FR ..4.hiCltiirP EEL INN, SecreNly.

OFFICE OF ORDNANCE,
June 25, 1302.
THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS of HIS MA-
YESTY't ORDNANCE do hereby giiie Not:ty, that
Proposals will he received at their o.ffice, in St. Margaret.
street,- Ire,stminster, on TUESDAY, the 13th day of ,buy, ISoz,
from such Persons as shall think proper to enter into a ContraEl
for the supply of such Quantities and Descriptions of

:CORDAGE,
as the Board may order to be farnirbed for the Service of the Ord.
nanee, during a period of One Year. '

The Terms and Conditions sr the Co.ntraß may he known upon
application at the Secretary's Office, ix St. Margaret-street, any
day between the flours of Ten and Four o'Clock, but no Prop.:
Salt can be admitted after Tuesday, the, 13th day of Jul next.

By °Cita 11 the Boa►d,

'R. if. CREW, Sec:

OTHER REASONS for NOT TREATING at the ensu-
ing Eledion, than those contained in the Abstrad of the
Ad of the 7th of William 111. just published by Mr.
Bird and Mr. Moore, for the Comfort of their Friends. '
RIDLER.v. PETERMOORE, &c.
A T. Gloucester '.Summer Assizes, in August
1 1797,a Cause came on to be tried before Lord Kenyon,
in which Mr. Ridler, who keeps the Hop-pole Inn, Tewkes-
bury, was Plaintiff, and Peter Moore and ltis Colleague (the
two unsuccessful Candidates at the last Eledion for that
place) were Defendants. The' Adion was brought. for the
recovery of a Bill amounting to 3061. and upwards, for the
entertainment of Mr. Moore and his Friends at the Eleaion.
Mr. Moore-and his Colleague defended separately,. thereby
intending to defeat the Plaintiff; who had brought his A lion
against them jointly ; .but it was perfectly clear from the evi-
dence, that they had been joint Candidates; that all their
Agents had aded for them jointly- that they had both taken
up their residence at the-Plaintiff's house during the whole
time of tlie,Election, and had. given orders to the Plaintiff
both jointly and separately. It was stated to the Jury, that
a contrad had been made, between Mr. Moore and his
Friend, that, for a certain consideration, Mr. Moore had en..
gaged to bear all the expellee of the Eledion, and that his
Colleague had no concern in the Bills incurred.
Lord Kenyon observed, that when he first heard of the
Cause, he imagined that the Plaintiff had taken the advan-
tage which Innkeepers generally too on similar occasions, by
making a most exorbitant and nurentonable Bill ; but he was
glad to find that in this case the Plaintiff steered clear of all
imputation of that sort, as he had offered to refer his charges
to the decision of any Gentleman ; and it appeared that the
Defendants themselves had appointed Persons to attend at
the house as Inspeclors, who were pettedly satisfied with
the reaqnmahlene:c ,if the Bill_
n summing up the evidence, his Lordship condemned, in
the strongest manner, the condud of Mr. Moore and his
Colleague; pertedt strangers as they were to the Town, they
Caine there to disturb its peace, and to oppose two neighbour-
ing Gentlemen of the highest character and respedability—
not by fair and honourable means. What Mr. Moore could
see in his Colleague, to take him under his protedion, and
to frank hint at this Eledion, he could not tell ; but as they
had been so lovingly together at the Eledion, he would not
separate them on-the present occasion.
The Learned Judge further stated; that he had heard of a
Bill filed in the Court of Chancery, to obtain an account of
the profits ofa partnership trade, carried or. at Bagahot Heath ;
but when it appeared, that the trade was taking the purses
of those who travelled over the Heath, the Court would not
endure the Bill. This contract between Mr. Moore and his
Colleague, his Lordship observeiteseemed to him to be of
the same nature. .
Upon the whole, his , Lordship Was clear, that a vendid
ought to be given for Mr. Ridler, the Inn-keeper, which the
Jury found without hesitation, and which verdict entitled
the Inn-keeper to his demand, as well as the Costs of his
Suit.
(*- See Sun Paper, August 3t, t 797, and Clifford's Re-
port of the Southwark Case, page 37 t.