The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-26 00:00:00

UN DER LYME.

Mr. FOLLETT moved for a rule for a mandamus
to the corporation of Newcastle-under-Lyme, to
elect a town-clerk. The late town-clerk hot been
ejected by a deckion or t hi. Court, and this mandamus
would be to fill up the vacincy.—Rule Nisi granted.
Mr. DOUGHTY obtained a rule Nisi far an attach-
ment against the Mayor of Newcastle. under-Lyme,
for not allowing an inspection of the corporation
book,, put guava to an order of the Court.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY, JAN. 25.

LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP THETIS.

Mr. HAGGARD was heard at considerable length
to-day in support of the claim of Captain Dickinson
as principal salver. Admiral Baker had himself con-
sidered the treasure as derelict until, by the extra-
ordinary exertions of Captain Dickinson, not less
than 750,000 nut of 810,000 dollars were recovered;
that it was bona vacontin, "in the deep bosom of
the ocean buried," ti►l raised by the skill of his client.
The owners ungraciously objected to the salvage re-
muneration, The Learned Civilian cited many cases
in support of the claim, and argued, from the facts
in the cause, that to Captain Dickinson alone was
die the honour of the noble enterprise that had been
accomplished.
Dr. MATCIIAM, for the officers and crew of the
IVarspitc, and Drs. CURTIS and ROBINSON, for the
Hon. Captain de Roos and the crew of the Algerine,
also addressed the Court in support of the claims of
these several parties.
The further proceedings were adjourned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 25.

NEWTON V. PEACOCK.

Mr. IltPrctuNsoN showed cause against a rule
obtained by the defendant, for entering a
su2ge:tion on the roll for depriving the plaintiff of
costs, under the London Court of Requests Act,
the 39' h and 40th George 111., c. 104. The Act
extends the provisions of former Acts to cases
where the debts to be recovered shall not amount to
.51., and shall be due from any person residing
or inhabiting within the city of London or its
1 berties, or keeping any house, warehouse, shop,
shed, stall, or stand, or seeking a livelihood, or
trading, or d sling, within the same city ; and
if any action shall be brought in any oilier
C tort than the said Court of Requests, for any debt
not exceeding 51., and recoverable in the said Court
of Request:, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to
any costs whatever. The plaintiff had obtained a
verdict for less than .51., and it appeared from the
affi lavits, that the defendant was a Prussian-blue-
manufacturer, and that he rented, what he himself
described as a warehouse, but what the plaintiff's
affi lavits styled a counting-house, in Allhallow's-
lane, London, where he occasionally slept, but that
he generally slept at the house of his father-in-law,
in Kent. Under these circumstances, Mr. Hut-
chinson contended that the defendant was not a re-
sident or inhabitant within the city of London, en-
titled to the protection of this Act.

•
Mr. STEERs, contra, insisted that the defendant,
keeping a warehouse within the city, was so en-
titled.—Rule discharged.

CONSISTORY COURT, JAN 25.

BROWNE V. BROWNE.

Dr. LUSHINGTON gave sentence in this case. It
was a question of jurisdiction; Mr. Browne, in a
suit of divorce, by reason of adultery, contending
that, according to the canons and the Statute of
Ciialions, he was not liable to be cited before this
Court, as he was not inhabiting a dwelling within
the diocese of London. The Learned Judge, with-
out affixing any precise meaning to the words
" inhabiting and dwelling," held that M. Browne
had not shown that he was not an inhabitant of the
dioce-e within the meaning of the S.atute, and
consequently over-ruled the protest and costs.