The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-14 00:00:00

MEMBERS RETURNED.

DOVER, DEC. 13.—The Right Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson
and Sir John Rae Reid.
CHESTER, DEC. 12.—Lord Grosvenor and T. Jet ViS.
COCKERMOUTIL—F. L. B. Dykes and H. Anglemby.
WAKEFIELD, DEc. 13.—Daniel Gaskell, Esq.
NOTTINGHAM, DEC. 13.—Ferguson and Duncannon.
FLINT, DEC. 11.—Sir S. Glynn, Batt.
STOKE-urom-TRENT—Davenport and Wedgwood.
GATESIIEAD, DEC 12.—C. Rippon.
NIALToN, DEC. 12.—C. C. Pepys and W. C. Wentworth.
TIVERTON, DEC. 12.—Heathcoat and Kennedy.
PEMBROKE, DEC. 12.—H. 0. Owen.
ASHBURTON, DEC. 12.—W. S. Poyntz.
CRICKLADE, DEC. 13.—T. Calley and R. Gordon, without oppo.
sition.

STATE OF THE POLLS.

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

IN RE BAPTIST, A BANKRUPT.

This was an application to discharge the bankrupt, who had
been committed by the Commissioners for not answering the
questions put to him satisfactorily. His Lordship was satis-
fied that the answers from the seventh to the forty-fourth
were unsatisfactory. The question then was, whether, in con.
sequence of there being a deficiency in the subsequent part of
the writ, as regarded the fulness with which matters referred
to were set out in it, the commitment, was vitiated. His
Lordship was of opinion that that did not vitiate the commit.
ment, and refused to liberate the prisoner, recommending,
however, that the Commissioners should call him before them
again without delay, that he might have an opportunity of
answering more fully.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that the appeals in
to-day's paper had been put in by mistake. No Counsel were
ready to go on with anything, and, therefore, his Lordship
rose early, intimating that he would not sit again till Monday,
at 11 o'clock.
KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

BAYLIS v. HAYWOOD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a printer, in
Johnson's court, Fleet-street, to recover 131. 19s. from the de-
fendant, who was an attorney in the Temple, for printing a
pamphlet, written by Mr. Robert Hamilton.
Mr. PLATT having stated the case for the plaintiff, called
witnesses, who proved that the defendant gave the order to
print the pamphlet, and that the copies, when printed, were
sent to the defendant's chambers.

Mr. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, contended that Mr.
Hamilton alone, and not the defendant, was liable, the latter
having only introduced Mr. Hamilton to the plaintiff.
Mr. Hamilton, on being called, corroborated the statement
of the Learned Counsel.

His LORDSHIP having summed up, the Jury found aver.
diet for the plaintiff for the sum named.

SOUTER v. DRAKE.

This was an action brought to recover a compensation for
the non-performance of an agreement entered into by the de-
fendant with the plaintiff:
Mr. COMYN stated the case for the plaintiff. It appeared
that the plaintiff had the unexpired term (372 years) of the
lease of a house at Stockwell to dispose of, with the fixtures on
it, and that the defendant agreed to take it at a rental of 42/. a
year, and paying 301. for the fixtures. The plaintiff incurred
some expense in preparing an assignment of the lease; but the
defendant broke the contract, and refused to have the pre-
mises, which remained vacant for a considerable period, oc-
casioned a loss to the plaintiff'.

Mr. THESSIGER took an objection, that there was no proof
that the defendant had an opportunity of inspecting the original
lease, and of ascertaining the plaintiff's title, and conse-
quently he could not be said to have broken his agreement.
He also objected, that there was no proof of the lessor's title,
which should have been proved before the defendant could be
charged with breaking his engagement.
Mr. COMYN contended that there was quite sufficient
proof to let the case go to the Jury.
At the suggestion of his LORDSHIP, it was agreed that a
verdict should be taken for the plaintiff for 251., subject to the
opinion of the Court upon the points raised.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)