The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-28 00:00:00

description ; and Captain O'Neil further stated, that there
was no previous agreement between any of the parties
that any play should be introduced.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD.—Does it appear what was the
amount ]cast
Mr. BROUGHABL—NO, my Lard) Captain O'Neil states
that he lost 65/.

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.--We don't think we aught to
grant this rule, as we think we ought to have more infor-
mation first; besides, it Would appear from their own
showing, that the parties were engaged in an illegal trans-
action. _ _ _

Mr. BROUGHABI.—It certainly may be so said, but there
is the greatest difference in the. world between that and the
offence with which Captain O'Neil stands charged, and if
the defendant is allowed by publications of this nature to
prejudice the minds of the public by such misrepresenta-
tions, the course of justice will he interrupted, and it will
be impossible for Captain O'Neil to receive a fair trial;
he (Mr. Brougham) therefore trusted the Court would
not refuse this application, because an illegal act had been,
done. , Captain O'Neil hild, for the injury he had already
received, brought an action against the defendant, yet
he still persisted in the same course. Here he was on
Saturday pleading his sham pleas, and getting up an infor-
mation against Captain O'Neil, for what purpose the
CoUrt would decide ; and on Sunday he puts forth to the
world a statement,' which is to be found in no other paper,
which can only be derived from the information he has re-
ceived from the parties engaged in preferring the bill, and
which statement is wholly unfounded, and denied in the
most direct direct terms,.not only by Capt. O'Neil, but the
landlord, the waiter, the person by whom the cards were
-sold, which were so unblushingly represented as having
been the instruments of this alleged fraud.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.—Mr. Brougham, you cannot
get the rule made absolute before next term. By proceed-
ing at the session against the defendant, you will obtain a
much earlier remedy.
Mr. Justice Hotaurp.--I-think your remedy would be
more expeditious by the ordinary mode of proceeding, and
that, without further information, we should not grant the
rule.—Rule refused.

TIER KING V. HE ROCHA.

The COMMON SERGEANT said, he had in this case to
apply to the Court to postpone its judgment on the de-
fendant, on account of the defendant's extreme ill health.
The defendant had been found guilty, having' been pro-
ceeded against by criminal information, for writing and
publishing a libel on the Count Palmella, the Portuguese
Ambassador.
Mr. BROUGHAM, on the part of the Count Palmella,
said, that it was not the wish of his Noble client to press the
judgment of the Court against the defendant, after the
apologies that he had made.
The COURT then admitted the defendant to cuter into
his own recognizances of 500/. to appear in Court to re-
ceive judgment, in case he should, at any future period, be
called on.
The defendant having entered into the above recogni-
, zunees, was discharged.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 27•
This morning the Court sat at the usual hour, when the under-
named insolvent* were severally discharged, there being no oppo-
sition.
Samuel Sugden, Edward Williams, Samuel Wells, John
Kirby, William Turner, John James Purchase, Thomas
Davies, the younger, Jonathan Horsetail, and William Long-

•
botham.
Thomas Hull was opposed by Mr. Oliver Willcocks.
The Insolvent stated, that in the beginning of the present year
he removed from his house in Stratton Ground to. Brewer-street,
Westminster, at which period lie paid a composition of 2s. 6d. in
the pound, anll accepted bills for 2s. 6d. more to the whole of his
creditore. Insolvent wai compelled to sacrifice his property to
enable him to pay the 2s. 6d. in the pound down.
It was alleged by the opposing creditor, that the insolvent had
gives an undue preference to a person of the nanie of Farrow,
and• that the property removed from Strutton-ground, was of the
value of upwards of 300/.
The insolvent denied the statement, upon which
Mr. VfIid.COCKS said, he would not put any more questions,
but was convinced that the insolvent had been guilty of undue
preference, and fraudulently making away with property.
Mr. CostmissioNrit HARRIS said tbat the insolvent had an-
swered every question put to him very ingenuously, and that thire
was nothing like evidence that he had committed the offences at-
tributed to him.—Discbarged.