The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-05 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

JI.II,TON CRAVEN MEETING, MAY 3.
The Craven Stakes of 10 sovs. each. Five subscribers.
Mr. Ellis's Primendorf
Major Yarburgh's The Lion
Mr. Marson's Panton
Mr. Attwood's Florio 4
Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each for fillies, and 20 added. One mile.

Four subscribers.
Mr. Garforth'p b. by Figaro 1
Mr. Robinson's Bounce 2
Mr. Ellis's Maria
The Welkam Silver Cup, value 50 sovs. and 15 in specie. Two

miles.
Mr. G. Thompson's The Farrier
Sir T. Legard's Adelaide
Mr. Bower's High Sheriff

THE FUNDS -(THIS DAY.)

CITY, TiV EL VE 0' CLOCK.
The following mails arrived this morning :—A Lisbon
mail, sailed on the 22d April ; Rio Janerio, sailed 4th of
March ; and Leeward Islands, sailed from St.Thomas's the
6th April.

Montreal Papers to the 3d April and Quebec to the Ist
of April, have been received at the North and South
American Coffee.hotm.

(From the Montreal Papers.)
The backwardness of the present Spring begins to be
severely felt. Last seaso❑ the ice broke up before Alon-
treel en the Ist of April, and the first steam-boat arrived
on the 10th. Last night the frost was very keen, and the
ice in front of the city is still firm and good.
We regret to see that Mr. APKenzie continues to agi-
tate the Sister Province. On the 19th inst. a meeting
was held at Hamilton, which became a scene of uproar,
we might almost say riot. Mr. M'Kenzie and his friends
attempted to call W. B. Shelden, Esq. to the chair, and
the opposite party nominated the Sheriff of the district.
After considerable noise and confusion the Sheriff took the
chair, and Mr. Al'Kenzie attempted to remove him. The
meeting terminated i❑ a row. In the evening, however,
Mr. M'Kenzie was attacked at the door of the House, and
was severely beaten.
(From the Quebec Papers.)
The Halifax Papers state that the New Brunswick
Legislature was prorogued on the 10th inst., and that
the Legislature have passed an Act to raise a revenue,
which will increase the duties on several articles of im-
port. The duties on English manufacture was abandoned.

COURT Or CHANCERY.--( HIS DAY.)

PERSONAL APPLICATION.

When the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat, a private
individual stated that in two of the cause petitions which stood
at the head of his Lordship's paper he was deeply interested.
It was of great importance to him that they should be heard
early, and that if his Lordship would appoint any day or even-
ing next week when they might be heard, he would feel ex-
tremely grateful. One of them was against an attorney of this
Court, who .resided 159 miles from town, and as it would be
necessary to give him notice, it would be a great accommoda-
tion to have a time fixed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR requested the applicant to
leave his address with the officer of the Court, and having done
so, he immediately went away.
JUDGMENTS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he observed there were
two cases in the paper for judgment at the rising of the Court,
viz. " Vansandau v. Moore" and " Stephens v. Edmonds;'.
in the latter case he had not been supplied with some informa.
tio❑ he had desired to be furnished with, therefore he would
not be able to dispose of it to.day; he would, however, besides
giving judgment in the former case, dispose of " Portman v'
Mill" at the close of the day.

aceTorhdeinCgoutortdaptreo.eeeded to hear motions that were in the paper

ROLL'S COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

\VILLIMOTT v. OGILVY.

The defendant concluded his address to the Court shortly be-
fore two o'clock to-day, and Mr. Bickersteth rose to reply, his
Honour, the Master of the Rolls having intimated that he did
not think it necessary to hear Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr.
'l'reslove, Mr. Boteler, and Mr. Pigot. The Learned Gentleman
had not concluded his address when our reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR took causes, ex-
ceptions, and further directions to-day, none of which pos.
sessed any public importance.

The Court rose at a quarter before two o'clock, having dis-
posed of all the cases on its paper.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING v. THE EARL OF EGREMONT.

This was a special case, reserved from the Sussex Quarter
Sessions, at which an appeal had been heard at the instance of
the Noble defendant against the poor rates assessment, upon
some land belonging to him in a parish in that county. The
farm was stated to be let at 501. a year, and it had been rated at
the sum of 57/. 19s. 6d. The Sessions confirmed the rate with.
out hearing any evidence on the part of the Noble Earl, upon
which this Court issued a mandamus, commanding the Court
of Quarter Sessions to rehear the appeal. It was accordingly
reheard, and the rate again confirmed subject to the opinion of
this Court, upon a special case.

After hearing the arguments of Mr. CAPRON in support of
the conviction, and Mr. LONG on behalf of the Noble
defendant.

Their Lordships stated, that upon looking at the case sub-
mitted to them by the Court of Sessions, they found an in..
sufficiency of facts stated therein, and they were thereby pre-
vented from coming to any conclusion. They therefore referred
the case back to the Quarter Sessions.

THE LATE RIOTS.-DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.

LOW F. TIIE HUNDRED OF BROXTON—Low AND ANOTHER F.
THE SAME—MUSTERS, ESQ. U. THE HUNDRED OF THUR WAS.
TON—PENROSE V. THE 111011 CONSTABLE OF DERBY.
These were actions to recover damages to compensate the
plaintiffs for property which had been destroyed during the
late riots in different parts of this county. They were tried
at the assizes and verdicts found for the plaintiffs, subject to
the opinion of the Court, upon the construction of the Act of
Parliament of the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., cap. 31, upon the pro-
ceedings therein stated to be necessary to be taken before a
justice of the peace prior to a party being enabled to sue
the hundred for compensation. The points in dispute were the
same in each case, and they were fully argued on a former day.
This morning Lord TENTERDEN gave judgment in all the
cases. His Lordship said, that the points reserved for consi-
deration were as to the proceedings necessary to be taken before
a Justice of the Peace, and also as to the sufficiency of the de-
clarations in averring what had been so done, and upon the ob.
jbction taken by the Counsel for the defendants, it was con.
tended that there were sufficient grounds for a nonsuit,
or for an arrest of judgment. His Lordship referred to the
act in question, the third section of which stated that
" no action or summary proceedings shall be maintainable by
virtue of this Act for the damage caused by any of the said of-
fences, unless the person or persons damnified, or such of
theni as shall have knowledge of the circumstances of the offence,
or the servant or servants who had the care of the property
damaged, shall within seven days after the commission of the
offence, go before some Justice of the Peace, residing near
where the offence shall have been committed, and shall state
upon oath before such Justice, the names of the offenders, if
known, and shall submit to the examination of such
Justice, touching the circumstances of the offence,
and become bound by recognizance before him to prosecute
the offenders when apprehended." The object of that section
was to furnish the means of bringing all offenders to punish.
meat for the sake of example, but not for the sake of ven.
gence. On reference to the preceding clause, it would be seen
that it was introduced for the purpose of making it the interest
of all the inhabitants of a district to exert themselves to
suppress tumultuous assemblies, and to prevent the spreading
of such outrages, and the serious loss which they were calcu-
lated to create. That section, which was the second, stated
" And be it enacted that if any church or chapel duly regis.
tered, or any house, stable, coach-house, out_house, warehouse,
office, shop, mill, &c. or any building, used in carrying on any
trade or manufacture, or branch thereof, or any machinery,
whether fixed or moveable, prepared for or employed in any ma-
nufacture, or in any branch thereof, &c. shall be feloniously de-
molished or destroyed, wholly or in part, by any persons riot-
ously and tumultuously assembled together, in every such case
the inhabitants of the hundred, &c. shall be liable to yield full
compensation to the person or persons damnified.•' His Lord-
ship went through the evidence respecting the appearance of the
servants, or the parties themselves, going before a Justice, and
the Court were clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs had com-
plied with the provisions of the Act in that respect, and also that
the averment in the declarations as to what the parties had so
done, was also a sufficient averment, consequently there would
be no rule granted in either of the cases.
The verdicts were ordered to stand for the plaintiffs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

GILMOUR v. WHITELEY.

The defendant in this action is a merchant in Monmouth-
shire, who accepted an accommodation bill for 200/. in favour
of a wine-merchants named Williams. The bill came into the
hands of the plaintiff in the regular way of trade, and it being
dishonoured, he sued the defendant upon it, who allowed judg.
ment to go by default. Upon execution being about to be is-
sued, the defendant came up to London to see Williams, when
an 'arrangement was come to, by which the execution was
stayed for a time. In the early part of the term the
defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the ex-
ecution ought not to be stayed, on the ground of the
debt and costs having been settled. The defendant made
affidavit, that when in London he, accompanied by Williams
and another friend, called upon the plaintiff, when some con-
versation took place between the plaintiff and Williams, at the
end of which the plaintiff came forward and gave the bill to
him, the defendant, saying, " There is your bill,:the thing is
settled," upon which he threw the bill into the fire. In this
statement he was corroborated by his friend. Williams has
since become bankrupt, and has absconded.

Mr. BUSBY this morning showed cause against the rule.
Ire produced the affidavit of the plaintiff, and that of two of
his clerks, who deposed that the arrangement that was made
with Williams was the taking another bill as a collateral secu-
rity, but that when the bill was delivered to the defendant, he
was expressly told that the judgment which had been got against
him should stand, to be used if the bill which was then taken
was not paid. After hearing the defendant's Counsel in reply,
their Lordships discharged the rule.