The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-05 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held a
meeting yesterday, in the Council Chamber, and resumed
the appeal from tengal " Raja Grecs, Chund Roy versus
Sumboo Chund Roy."

After the Counsel for the appellants, Messrs. Miller and
Wigrarn, bad concluded, the Right Hon. Thomas Erskine
gave judgment on the part of their Lordships. It appeared
that by will, the great grandfather of the present respondent
bequeathed bis Zemindary to his eldest son, charging it
with a fixed stipend to his other children ; this attempt was
now objected to, because it was excessive.. The present
appellant had promised to pay these sums, and allowed that
the Zemindary wagsufficient to discharge them, although •it
had become much reduced. He had not objected in the
Courts below that the stipends were excessive when they
were originally made, and no proof had been produced that
the Zemindary had been reduced by causes over which the
appellant had no control. The appellant complained that,
by a decree in the Court below, he had been made per-
sonally responsible, but it was not pretended that the estate
itself was not sufficient to pay all arrears, and their Lord-
ships would not, therefore, reverse a decree given 29 years
ago, but, considering there was co ground to disturb the
judgment of the Court below, dismissed the appeal with
costs.

A number of appeals from the award of the Commis-
sioners of French Claims were then proceeded with. In
the first, " Joshua Carter v. the Commissioners," Dr.
Lushington stated that a stun of 511/. was claimed for the
services of eight negroes who had been sent to the public
works by the French for several years. The King's Advo-
cate (Sir John Dodson) and Mr. Wightman, supported the
award given by the Commissioners—viz. 240/. The case
was referred back to the Commissioners, as the grounds of
their decision were not clearly given.
" Representatives of Richard Downing Jennings."—ln
this appeal their Lordships allowed the claims for the value
of 15 slaves, a quantity of cattle, and 1,368 dollars for sugar
and rum, instead of 1,228, as awarded by the Commission-
ers, together with interest.

" Representatives of Richard and Samuel Romney."—
The Messrs. Romney were seized by the French—sent to
the. Hulks—took the small pox—and died. An inventor-Iwhich identified their property, when sequestered, 11:2:," been
sent with other papers to the French omrr.issioners at
Paris, by whom it had been lost. This ;:aventory was now
claimed to be admitted in support 0: the claim.—The case
was referred back to the Come;issioners. Other cases were
also sent back.

COURT OF-IaNG'S BENCH.

HOPKINS V. DUNLOP.

Mr. KNowmts stated that this was A. action brought to
recover the amount of a bill of es change, of which the de-
fendant was the acceptor. The plaintiff was a carpet ma-
nufacturer at Kidderminster, and the defendant a fashion-
able dressmaker in Regent-street. The Learned Counsel
stated the variety of pleas that had been put upon the
record, among which were some denying consideration, and
said that the material one for the Jury to consider was
this, that the defendant had drawn a certain other bill of
exchange, which she had given to a person named Butcher,
who falsely and fraudulently pretended that he had lost
the same, and that on this false representation she had
been induced to give the bill on which the present action
was brought. To this plea the plaintiff replied that at the
time Butcher made this representation he believed the same
to be true.

Evidence was called to make out this statement.
Lord DENMAN left the case to the Jury, who returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the second bill
(that on which the action was brought), but stated that in
their opinion there had been great negligence on the part
of the plaintiff.

THOMAS M'CORMIE V. ELIZABETH REAVELY.

Mr. BUSBY stated that this was an action to recover
damages from the defendant for an injury done to a boy,
the son of the plaintiff, by a large deg, belonging to the
defendant.

Mr. Anderson, a surgeon, in Buckingham-street, Fitzroy-
square, on examining the head, found a contused wound on
the scalp ; the skin was broken. The boy's general health
had been impaired by the accident.

The attack of the dog on the boy, acid its fierceness,
were fully proved by two or three different witnesses.
Mr. PLATT addressed the jury for the defendant, and
contended that there was no case for damages.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 51. ls. 6d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.