The Sun.
London, England, 1804-11-28 00:00:00

THE EtNG V. BOURNS.

Mr. WOOD she wed cause against a Rule obtained
by Mt. ER UK I NI, at the instance of Lord St. Vitt.
cent, for a Criminal Information against Mr. Bourne.
He read an affidavit from Mr. Bourne, who deposed,
that he had never heard of the Pamplilet'entitled
Audi alttram Partem, till his return from Ireland,
and that es to the Pamphlet entitled " Naval Ad-
ministration," lte had only endeavoured to secure
the suppression of that out of regard to Lord St.
Vincent, who had done him afavour. This was hit •
motive for shewing it toMr. Tucker, after he had,
at a considerable expence, secured its suppression.
FrancisWilliamßlagtion,Eh*alsonsakan affida v it,
from which it appeared that he %'as the Author 91 the
Pamphlet • entitled 4, Naval Adrninistration,", bot
knew nothing about the Pamphlet entitled " thafittl.
'teram Partem," thutigli the latter:containe.d a great.
partint. what was in the -tomer, which must have
happened by copi-s being taken becietly trom the
ptinting,ffize. Mr.Ftet.ot No, the same side,w h
Mr. WOOO, urged there.. b,hility thar.same sheets,
had het'. .-curly conveyed front therintyst., trice,
where there ‘t ere usraeters who, wett rps
miao, devils./and others more di.ehnlicsi tho,e
who went by the above appe:lation. lie confessed
that at hrst,considerable subpici on might 14,41,e arisen,
and in France they might hive ginflottne I a man on
no better evidence, anti the liaisition would have
roasted him But in this Country rio min was con-
demned on susincion, and this was fortunate, be.
Cathie the Defendant in this instance had cleared
himself.

Mr. ErisKiva endeavoured to maintain the Rule.
He differed from hi.B learned friend Mr. Fitt LD I NG.
In France any ',mon who published a libel against
Lord St.-Vineenr would not he guillotined. On the
contrary, such a libel would be an ample protetlion
to him.

The Court, however, ordered the Rule, to he
discharged as far as it resneded Mr Swine, and to
be made absolute against Budd and Sidney.

THt ICING ti. BLAGDON.

Mr. je "Nis moved for a Criminal Infortmtion
against Mr. Mid" whl had confessed himself the
Auth-r of the Pamphlet called "Naval Administra.
tion.” The Court, however, thought that there
was not,a sufficient publication of the libel for them to
interfere. It might, however, go before a Grand
Jury.—Rule refuted.
Three cases were decided, by which it was
settled that carriers were not obliged to be answer.
able for goods, unless. specially. committed to their
care; that a promise to accept a Bill of Exchange
is binding, though made without the knowledge of
the holder of the bill; and that the custom of oblig-
ing every new copyh Id tenant to enter in the Court
of the Lord of the Manor, is A good and reasonable
custom.

INFOAMATIoN,
ItiNG *V. LOWTHLit.
Mr. Qin ss moved for leave to filea criminal In.
formation Against Mr.Loultber,a Gentleman of Wilt.
shire, tot improper conduct to the Magistrates of
that County. He made the application on the part
of Lord Radnor, Mr. Byres, Mr. Henry jacoht•
and Mr. Batton,. who were Magistrates of Wilt.
shire. The circumstances that led to this of.
tence, were as follow : Mr. Lowther, the Sheriff,
had employed a person of the name of Soap tb dig
-well for him; but notbeingsatisiml with it, he re.
fused to pay theman for his labour, The man -applied
•to the MagiStrilted, who issued an official warrant
to the Sheriff to answer to the demand. Mr.'Low-
titer, in reply, wrote to Mr. Batton, stating, "that
the Magistrates might have chosen a more retpeet#
fol manner of communicating this affair to him, in.
stead of issuing an Oficial warrant, especially as the
matter had been mentioned at the last Quarter See.
lions, .when the Magittrases very properly declined
to interfere. It was improper to attend to the ap-
plications of such fellows,, or to. issue warrants at
their request, when the; IWO refusal of #,Gpticniart
to pay was a proof tliat nothing was owing,''
The Magistrates, somewhat doubtful whether they
had a competent jurisdittion, deferred any further
proceedings till the meeting of the Quarter Sessions,
when they conferred together, andwere clearly of
opinion that they had a jurisdinion in this affair.
Another summons was therefore sent to Mr. Low.
ther, who, in reply, wrote to the following died
to Mr. Batton
ta,—After what I formerly wrote to you relative to this
affair, I thought pin would have
,perceived the'propriety of
io
declining to Interr:chile in it, and maul should hear nothing.,
turtbei about the matter. I was therefore considerably sur-
prised at receiving another summons, about an attidr so en-
tirely out of your, joristlielion, that I must conclude your.
conduit to have proceeded either from your want of ability
todischarge the dirties of your situation, or to have been de-
signed as a personal insult tome.- I beg to know in which
of these lights lam to consider it. In the mean time I shall
take such steps as the law &redo.
(Signed) G. LOWTIIER.
The Learned Counsel observed, that if Magi.
mates were to he insulted in this, manner, it would
be impossible for them to do their duty. ..
Lord ELLENBOkoIIGH.—gt Take a Rule.!'

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Way. a 6.

DAV, z., DIODY.

This was an Idiot) cite the case tried at Warwick
A s zes. The Plaintiff's horse was, taken in dis_

tress for the assessed taxes. The Plaintiff, con.
ceiving he had nn right to pay them, replevied hit
horse, and proceeded to trial ; but it being a case
of considerable importance to the wbtle constable-
wick, is was agreed that a special case should be
sent to the Court of Exchequer ; but, not being in
regular form, that Court declined to give their opi.
Mon upon it, and it was sent into the Common Pleas.
Sixteen persons were appointed by the Commis.
sioners under an Mt of Parliament to coiled the
assessed taxes in the constablewick of .Bordsley,
Witton, and six other hamlets, specified by name.
Two persons were chosen out of each hamlet, and,
it had always been the custom for these two to col.
left the taxes in the hamlet in which they resided,
and never had any claim upon the inhabitants of
the neighbouring hamlets, but allowed each of them
to be eolleeted by the collettors chosen from, and
more immediately belonging to, their respective
hamlets. Gabber, the Collator of Witten, having
made default in his last payment, an order issued
from the Commissioners that the constablewick was
liable, and that all the hamlets should contribute to
make up the deficiency occasioned by the default of
the hamlet of Wilton. The Plaintiff, Bars, resid.
ing in the hamlet of Bordsley, was distrainec}, and
by this, means the whole question came before the,
Court.

Serjeant VAvcit.or, for the Plaintiff; argued,
that there was no constablewick in England named
in the manner this was named in the appointment
by the Commissioners; that it way called the con-
stfhlewick of Bordsley alone, and not the Contra-
blewick of Witton, Bord,ley, Etc."&c. ; so. that it
muss have been evidently their intentton to subdi-
vide the constablewick into eigit parts, or'
; and to appoint two persons to tolled in
each distriB, independent of each other, and, of
course, not responsible 'for the taxes due by any
other dist riE.

Serj:ant BAILEY, on the other side, maintained
• that one At and app.inttnent by the Cotivnissioners
under it, meant nothing else but the entire consta.
bliwtck "of 13 'Risley though the different hansiets
constituting it were specific lily named; antfundoubt.
adly every hamlet must be liable, as each person
was appointed to coiled in they constablewicle of
B.)rdsley only; that the Commissioners, in 'appoint.
ing them, had made use of 'a more particular name
than the contabletvick of Bordsley..
Sir jAMOS MANSt I it.LD said, he did not believe
the At empowered the' Commissioners to appoint
more "than two Colletints in each distriCt ; so if
they meant, as his brother BA 1 La v said, to applint
the sixteen Collectors of the constablewick of
Bordsley, it was contrary to the ASR of Parliament :
he was sorry it was not brought forward in the
Court of .Excliequerovhich, to him, appeared to he
the proper place for it.
Serjeant VAU4I AN, in support of this argument,
cited a' case from first Burrow, where five overseers
of the po •r were appointed instead of four, men.
tinned in the Att. It was decided by Lard
Y I FLD, that the number mentioned. in the Act
should he Adhered tn. From which, he argued,
that the Commissioners had no power to appoint
more than two to any one district, and of course
could not intend that these sixteen were, in coin.
Colleelors of the constablewiek t,f Bordsley,
but that they meant to divide it into eight districts;
appointing two to each, totally independent of each
other.

Sir JAMBS MANSFIELD thonght sixteen too many
to coiled in any one place, and it seemed to be the
intent that two should collect in each hamlet.—
Ordered to stand over.

SDINBUNGII, Nov. a+.

COURT OF sFssfoN.

On the t 6 h inst. ;the Court dCteimined a curious
and imp,briant question respeding a wager. hi
May 1797, two Gentlemen had entered into a con.
tra6l, regularly written and executed upon stamped
paper, that in case, at any time in the course of ten
year., the' value of tool. Sterling in '3 percent. con.
sols should rise to above 701. Sterling, the one
should pay to the other iool. Sterling, with interest,
after the rime should fall due On the other hand,
the other
,party was to pay tool. Sterling if the 3
per cent. consols did not rise to 701. in ten years ;
and both parties hound their heirs and executors to
perform this agreement. One of the Gentlemen
died, and the other, the present PUrsuer, when the
3 per cent. consols ruse to 701. brought the present
aElion ogiinot the brother and heir of the deceased
Gentleman, who admitted he was heir, and liable
for the payment of all his brother's just debts. It
was contended, on the one hand, that this was a
gaming wager, and no aCtion could lie,upon it ; it
was contended, on the other hand, that this was
not irgatning wager', such as horse.racing, money
lost at earths, dice, See.. but. a fair contract. The
question came before Lard. BANNATYNII-, Ordinary,
a hood,
wh that " the Contraft libelled was nut
akttiiitiabte in this •COurti and asitailxied the(De.
fender." . The Lord Ordinary after,wards or.dered
informations, and reported the case to the Court,
wherr their 1. irdships found, that the contract
libelled un is nut antonable in this Court ; and there.
fore assoilzies the Defender, and finds the Pursuer
liable in expences."

Last week some villains contrived to rob the
warehouse of Messrs. Ormerod and Davit}, in High.
street, Bristol. They watched an opportunity when
the shopmen were engaged, and, contrived, by
sniping the line of a stish.window, to throw it up
without being discovered, and cArried of several
pieces of goods of considerable value.
On Wednesday last the fAlowing Inquests were
taken before Mr. Tarr:a, one of the Coroners for
Gloucestershire, viz. At Easington, on. view of the
body of Robert Clark, who had for some time la-
boured under great anxiety of mind, and hanged
himself in a hay.lofr at that place; and, at Kemp-.
ford, on the body of Catherine Cowling, widow,
Avliu had, a few days before, come with her family
to that place, from Siddington, and diuwned her_
acct in the' ThaMes and,Severn Canal, deliberately
leaving *lier cloak on the bank. Verdict, in bsth
cases, LlMar.y.