The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-05 00:00:00

MEETINGS OF CREDITORS.

LONDON DIARY, WZDNZSTJAY, JU 7
Ilia risen, Flol-tnarltet, at the Gray'b inn Coffee House, Hol-
born, at 12.

At the Court of Commissioners.
W. Askey, Woburn-buildings, Tavistoek-square, at 10
Sir W. Roberts, Bart., Courtland's Devon, at 11.
W. W. Bird, Coventry, at 1 I.
Itensley, Throgmorton-street, at 12.
W. Cape], Mark-lane, at 12.
J. Maiillow, Portland-town, at 1.
A. Applegath, Stamford-greet, Lambeth, at 12.
W. Ilibbert, Mount-street Grosvenor-square, at 12.
W, Archer, Hertford, at 11.

COUNTRY DIARY, WEnritsnav, Jots 7.
C. J. Spencer, Carlisle, at the Blue Religion, Carlisle, at 11.
T. Sutcliffe, Laugfielit. Halifax, York, at the Roebuck, Roch-
dale, at 11.
V. Chase, jun., Gosport, at Mr. Callaway's oflice, Portsmouth,
at 12.
J. Harrison, Portsmouth, at Mr. Callaway's office, Portsmouth,

at 2.
J. Ridgway, Itineelealiehl, at the Macclesfield Arms, Nfaec

at 10. -
W. Coward, Southampton, at Mr. Bryant's office, Southampton,
at lit.
D. Howard, Leeds, at the Court-house, Leeds, at 11.
lt• Kay, Bury, Lancaster, at Mr. Sedduu's office, Manchester,
at 10.
W. Warder, lull., North Witham, Norfolk, at the White Swan,
Norwich, at IS.
Ww..4l:7llzieilyin,oui:tl;
aA,
t-1611:410:7..di:sii:azifoourdeb, a,
at
ttltieheß(lttoyacel
nHotel,o.i,l3,
, •J." ,i„„
"u"' Newcwfile-upon-Tyne, at the Turf Hotel, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, at
(N;:t:riwP°i:hl7, Wataitlaheilis::;:-N(oi"rwrit, Ws:l44'2ll' at
12.
H. Jackson,
J. Alderton,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jutete 3
•
THE KING v. SMITU.
CAMPIIELT. moved- for a rule to show cause why the ycnne
in this case should- not be removed out of the county of Stafford
to Gloucester, or some other county. This was an indictment
against two brothers and a sister for cruel creatment towards an-
other brother. The grounds of the present application were, that
the prosecution was instituted by the Magistrates, to whom the
Under-Sheriff of the county was Solicitor; and that the neigh-
bourhood was inundated with publications, both from the press
and by handbills, misrepresenting the facts of the case, and cal-
culated to excite a prejudice against the defendants, so that it was
impossible to have a faiy trial in Stafford.---Ride granted.

TUE KING t./. GARRISON.
This was an information on a Quo warranto against the de-
fendant, for exercising the office of Mayor in the borough of
Chester without being duly elected. It appeared that the corpo-
ration of Chester consists of 24 Aldermen and g Sheriffs, and
Burgesses, &c. and that by a charter of Henry VII. which is held
to be the governing charter of that borough, it was necessary
that a Sheriff should preside, and that a majority of the Aldermen
should concur in the election of a Mayor, yet there were only,seven
Aldermen in the -Hell at the election of the defendant. On be-
half of the defendant it 1.-as contended, that the charter of Henry
the 'Seventh had not been accepted by the borough of Chea-
ter, as it hid a charter given by Henry the Second, which
was time beyond memory, and that the customs of the borough
were the only rules for its guidance.
The case was tried at the last Assizes, and these points submit-
ted to the Jury, who found that the Corporation did not exist
from time immemorial; and gave a verdict for the King.
A rule to show cause' why the verdict should not be set aside
having been obtained this term, and the case baying been argued
by Mr. Ca-amoral. and Mr. TAUNTON, the Court were of opi-
nion that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and accordingly
set it' aside.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 3,
TIM KING V. MO.
The ArroittimOzweltat. moved the Court to have a verdict
entered for the Crown on the issue finual by the Jury against the
defendant in this case, and judgment followed up accordingly ; or,
if the Court thought there were not sufficient grounds for this,
be would move for a new trial on the issue, finding
that Mr. Laing had authority from the Comurission4a to
direct such alterations in the works as he thought over.
He contended that if the Treasury had in the express words given
such power to Mr. Laing, it would not justify Mr. Peto in de-
viating from the contract.

Mr
SCARLIM, on behalf of the defendant, contended that a
verdict had been for his client on all the material issues, and that
the issue finind for the Crown, namely, that there was a stratum
of gravel, was not Sufficient to sustain the application of the
Attorney General.

After a few words from the ATTORNILY4; EMMA L and Mr.
Baron HULLOCK, showing the irregularity of the application, Mr.
Scarlett was allowed to take his rule in the alternative—to'show
cause either why a verdict should not be entered for the defen-
dant: on all the issues, non °Wan& veredieto, or (in case the
Court was of opinion that the ism, for the Crown was material)
why a new trial should not be granted.
'flue ATTORNEY-OP:I4EIUL took his rule, which was also in
the alternative, to show cause, why either judgment should not
be entered up for the Crown on the issue found ; or why a new
trial should not be granted on the issue, finding that Mr. Laing.
WAS authorised by thr commissioners to give directions respecting
the piling, &c.

ARCHES' COURT, Jura 3.
LADY AMIENS AGAINST LORD AMIENS.
This case caws before the Court on a question as to admissi-
bility of the libel in a suit tin. divorce, on the ground of adultery,
instituted by Viscountess Amiens against Viscount Amiens. The
parties were married on the 2d of August, 1804, in Scotland, and
cohabited until the year 1610, when upon Lady Amiens' tempo-
rary absence from the place of their joint residence, his Lordship
eloped with a Mrs. Newcomen, with whom he continued to co-
habit up to the period when this suit was commenced, is the
Foment year.

Dr. itatrusn and Dr. DonsoN, on behalf of Lord Amin% ob-
jected to the admission of the 'libel, on account of the delay of six-
teen years which bad occurred in iusitutiog the present suit, not-
withstanding the notoriety of the adulterous intercourse. They
objected likewise to the certificate of the marriage which ha .been
produced, under the hand of Dr. Muster), of the Scats church,
who performed the ceremony in a private Louse ; inch evidence
never having been received in this Court as a proof of a marriage
legally contracted.

Lusnincrow, on the other hand, contended- that the de-
lay was sufficiently accounted for when the circumstances of Lady
Amiens were considered. Her Ladyship had no funds at her
command; she was dependent for support upon her own father,
until her father-in-law became Earl of Aldborough; and since
the year 181$ Lord Amiens had been in confinement for debt. It
was, moreover, acquiescence, not mere delay on the suitor's part,
which barred relief. With respect to the certificate of marriage,
he would amend the allegations, so as to show that the register
from whence it had been taken was a publicrecord.
The comx inquired if there had ever been a case in which
delay alone had operated as a bar to a suit of this nature; and
finding that none existed, directed the libel to •be admitted, but
the articles roveting the eyertificate and register to be reformed.