The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-23 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR.

The Princess AUGUSTA dined with the Duke and
Duchess of Gloucester on Thursdayevening, at Gloucester-
house, Park-lane.

The Baron de WESSE NB U KG, the Austrian Minister 611
a special mission, and the Baron de INIAREUIL, the Freud,
Minister, visited Viscount PA LMERSTON yesterday. The
Secretary to the Netherlands Embassy transacted business
yesterday at the office of the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs.

The LORD CHANCELLOR visited Earl GREY yesterday,
at the Treasury.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL, and Mr. CURTEIS, M. P. for
Sussex, and a Deputation from Sussex, had a conference
with Viscount ALTHORP yesterday, at the Treasury. Mr.
LAWLEY visited his Lordship yesterday.
The Right Hon. CHARLES GRANT entertained a party
at dinner yesterday, at his residence in Great George-
street.

Mr. Colquhoun, the Agent for Dominica, transacted
business yesterday at the Treasury, and also at the Co-
lonial Office.

PRIVY COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)

This morning at eleven o'clock the interresting appeal
of the Hindoo subjects, against an order of the Governor-
General in Bengal, relative to the religious rite and cus-
tom of Suttee, came on to be heard before the Committee
of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, in the
Chamber of the Council Office, Whitehall.
_..

The Committee consisted of the Marquess of Lans-
downe, (President) the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the
Rolls, Sir James Graham, Lord John Russell, Marquess
Wellesley, and Sir H. East.
Amongst the auditors who appeared interested in the
proceedings were the Raja Ramhoun Roy, and a number
of the Directors of the East India Company.
Mr. Bathurst acted as Clerk to the Council.

Amongst the Counsel engaged were Dr. Lushington,
the Solicitor. General, Sir E. Sugden, Sir Jame Wetherall,
Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Mr. J. E. Drinkwater, and Mr•.
W. C. Macdougall.
The proceedings were likely to continue the entire day.
The Raja seemed to be deeply absorbed in the argument
of Counsel.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

BAND ♦ND ANOTIIKB. V. NAYLOR.

This was an action brought by the two plaintiffs to re-
cover the sum of 448/. upon a bond given by the defepil-
ant to the plaintiffs.

Mr. PoLLocx stated the case for the plaintiffs. He said
his clients and the defendant were fellow collegians, and
while studying at Cambridge, the defendant applied to
the plaintiffs for assistance, upon which the defendant gave
them the bond in question, dated in June, 1824. The
defendant had pleaded first that the bond was not his ; and
secondly, that he was an infant when it was signed. How
it was he chose to deny his writing it was impossible for
him (Mr. Pollock) to say, bu tit would be proved to have
been signed by him. As to the plea of infancy, if that
were made out by his learned friend (Mr. Hutchinson) un-
doubtedly the case would fall to the ground.
The bond was put in and proved, and that constituted
the plaintiff's case.
Mr. HUTCHINSON, for the defendant, said, as to the
plea that the bond was not signed by his client was wholly
unnecessary, and might have been very properly omitted.
His defence was, that Mr. Naylor was born at Gloucester
in May 1804, and consequently he was only just turned
of 20 years when the bond was signed. Mr. Naylor was
a young gentleman of highly respectable connexions, being
the son of Dr. Naylor, an eminent physician of Glouces-
ter, and nephew of the late Sir George Naylor, Garter
King at Arm•. Nothing had been said on the other side
about the consideration for the bond, and therefore he (Mr.
Hutchinson) would say nothing, for he believed it was
not uncommon for young men at college to give bond)
to their fellow-students. He would solely rely on the
plea of infancy for the defence.
Mrs. Hyatt, a lady who for many years resided next
door to the defendant's parents at Gloucester, proved his
being born in May, 1804.
Under the directions of his LORDSHIP the plaintiff
was nonsuited.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

NOEL V. MIDDLETON.

This was an issue directed to be tried in this Court Ly
the Lord Chancellor.

Sir James Scarlet, Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, Mr. Thes-
siger, and Mr. Bacon appeared as Counsel for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr. Knight, Mr. Platt, and
Mr. Manning for the defendant.
The case, as it was stated by Sir James Searlett, was as
follows:—In the year 1803 the banking firm of Sir
Gerald Noel, Bart., and Co., of which the defendant's
father was a partner, were in difficulties, and raised a large
sum of money upon the security of the partners' estates.
Mr. Middleton died a few years after, and there was some
dispute about his will, as to whether it passed some copy-
hold estates which were the subject of the present issue.
The whole of the debts of the banking-house had been
paid by Sir G. Noel, and he claimed those estates as
having been pledged along with the others at the time of
raising the money. This would be proved by a schedule
made out at the time by Mr. Middleton of the property
which he considered as being liable, in which they were
enumerated.

The case was still going on when our Reporter left, and
from the quantity of papers and books on the table, it
seemed as it it would occupy all day.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning in
causes of no public interest.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE---(THIS DAY.)