The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(THIS)
COURT OF CHANCERY.
- • FREENtAN V. .FAIRLEY. •
This was a case discussed before his Lords/I;P'
while Master of the Rolls, upon 25 exceptioo9,
taken to the Master's Report. The arguments oc*
cupied a great length of time, the documents being
extremely numerous and bulky. The important
question regarded the nature and tenure of lan
held in Calcutta, and upon which there had
been very conflicting opinions delivered by the
t
Judges in India. His Lordship went into a most
elaborate detail of the charters and laws govern.
the possession of lands in the East ; in the course ?
which he declared it to be his opinion that lan& 111
India were to be considered as held and treated 05
cording to the English law. The particular lois
land that gave rise to the present question had bee
conveyed by deeds of lease and release, and the
Court concurred entirely with the Master, that le
real property was to be regarded as freehold inherit'
ance, descendable to the heirs of the possessors,
cording to British Legislation.
WYNNE v. JACKSON.
Mr. SUGDYN considered when the case was called
on, that if he went into it he would only subjea
himself to the imputation of having occupied 11'
great portion of time needlessly. The papers held
were exceedingly heavy, and to open the case tvoo
occupy nearly the whole of the day. He appeorJ `
for the appellant, and who had upon part of 1116.,
case Lord Eldon's opinion against him, and
another part that of the Master of the Rolls. Vie "
der these circumstances he felt it his duty to fella'
quish the appeal. •
The petition was accordingly dismissed.

•
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
His HONOUR came into Court to-day at the Usti'''.
hour, but was unable to proceed with business hi
consequence of the absence of Counsel. The paper
was directed to be called over, and it so happene"-'
that whee* the Counsel for the plaintiff were in at'.
tendance,'no Learned Gentlamen could be found t°
protect Vein fists of the defendant, and vice versa'
A t length is Honour was about to leave the
Court, when some gentlemen made their appear'
ance, who by great good fortune were engaged at
opposite sides in the same cause.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. GIBBONS.

Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET moved the Court for
judgment on George Henry Gibbons, who was coir;,''„
victed last term for a conspiracy, with others, in ur
lawfully selling a Cadetship under the East India
Company.
•
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in passing sentence, cool'
mented strongly on the impropriety of the offence, 0.
and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment in
the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench f"
prison.

THE KING V. BIJCKLAND.

Mr. GURNEY then m oved the judgment of the
Court on Edward Buckland, for assaulting George
Hex, an excise officer. The assault was made at the
melting-house of Buckland, a tallow-chandler, near
Camberwell, where the officer was proceeding to make
an unexpected search, on the night of the 31st July.
Lord TENTERDEN read over his notes of the trial.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS put in affidavits, proving,
that Edward Buckland was not yet twenty
years of age, and that the deponents had known hint
all his life to be a well-disposed and humane young
man. The Learned Counsel then addressed the
Court in mitigation of punishment, at great length.
He contended that none of the witnesses on the
trial had sworn positively that Edward Buckland
had been guilty of assaulting the officer, or of letting
loose the dog. On the contrary, one of them swore
that afterwards the defendant confessed that he was
there, but they also said, that he then also confessed
that he did what he could to get the dog off. The
Learned Sergeant then commented on other parte
of the evidence, on the address of the Learned
Counsel against the prisoner at the trial, who then
contended, that if the Jury acquitted the prisoner,
they must find that five persons had perjured them-
selves, and the Jury even with that assurance, were
two hours consulting before they returned a verdict
apinst the defendant.
Mr. BRODERICK followed on the same side; and
Mr. GURNEY then contended, in aggravation of
punishment, that the defendant was acting tinder .
the influence of a bad father, and that both bad
tried to get one of the witnesses to say that de-
fendant was not in the yard ; but the lad had, after
the question had been put to him again and again,
at last admitted that sufficient time had elapsed for
him to go there. The Learned Counsel contended
that they had endeavoured to add perjury to the.
crime of defrauding the revenue, and that therefore
his defence was only an aggravation of his guilt.
Mr. Justice BAILEY then proceeded to pass sen-
tence. He observed that the prisoner had been
convicted of obstructing the Excise officers in the
discharge of their duty, under circumstances of great
aggravation. The defendant kept a fierce dog on
the premises, and while the officers were proceeding
to perform a dangerous duty, it is in evidence, that
he loosed that dog and set him upon them. If the
consequences had been fatal to either of them he
would have been liable to be capitally convicted.
With regard, therefore, to the justice of the
verdict, the Court had not the slightest doubt.
Not one, but four of the witnesses had sworn
to his person ; for although they did not at the time
know him by name, yet when he came into the light I
they challenged him with the fact directly. With
regard to the illegality of the fraudulent practice
which was going on at the time the officers
were there, the Learned Judge would say a few
words. There are fair dealers and dishonest dealers.
The fair dealer pays the duty which he ought to
pay ; but the dishonest dealer does not pay the
duty, and therefore he does not, merely commit a
fraud on the Government, but also on the fair
,•
trader, by underselling him and depriving him of
those fair profits which he has a right to gain. The
proceedings in this case had put the person in the
same firm with defendant (his father) to consider-
able expellee, which, it is hoped, will prevent him
in future from carrying on so dishonourable a prac-
tice. It appeared in evidence that the defendant had •
great controul over the dog: had the dog been kept
for honest purposes, defendant ought to have done
every thing to keep him from the officers ; but, un- •
der such circumstances as the present, his setting him
on was extremely improper.
The Court had the power of inflicting hard la-
bour, as well as imprisonment and fine, and but for
the observation which dropped from Mr. Gurney,
that the defendant was under the influence of hie.
father, the punishment of hard labour would cer-
tainly have been inflicted.

The COURT then sentenced him to be imprisoned
for six months in Horsemonger-lane Gaol, to pay a
fine of 1001. to the King, to find two sureties in
2001. each for his good behaviour for three years,
and to be further imprisoned until such fine be paid
and suretics provided.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
The tom) CHIEF BARON sat in the Exchequer
Chamber to hear causes in equity.

SEARLE V. BALDWIN.
Ml. KNIGHT was heard the whole morning in
support of a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants, Messrs. Baldwin and Co., of Paternoster-
row, from proceeding at law to recover the =molt
of three post obit bonds of 1,0001. each. It appeared
from the affidavits of the plaintiff (Lieot.-colonel
Searle' of the Coldstream Guards), that, in the year
18 1 1, being in want of an advance of money, and
having large expectancies on the death of his bro-
ther, be executed three bends of 1,0001. each, pay-
able twelve months after his brother's death:' These
bonds were given to a person named Elliott, to ob-
tain an advance upon. This, however, he
never accomplished, nor returned the bonds ;
bu

they, by some means or other, got
into the possession of a literary gentleman 1141P3eq