The Sun.
London, England, 1819-06-30 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1819.

PUBLICATIONS.

Thii Day was published,
In I 2nio. price 4s. boards, the Fifth Edition of

ATREATISE on the CULTURE of the
APPLE and PEAR, and on the NIANUFACTURE of
CIDER and PERRY. With an Appendix.
By T. A. KNIGHT, Eaq.F.R.S. and L.S. and President of the
Horticultural Society of Londun.

Printed for Longman, Hnrst, Rees, Orme, and Brown,
London.

CAPTAIN ROSS'S VOYAGE. OCTAVO EDITION.
This Day was published,
A Second Edition, in Two Volumes Octavo, with an'entirely
new Map and other New Plates, price 11. ls. boards,
AVOYAGE of DISCOVERY, m8(le under
the Orders of the Admiralty, in his Majesty's Ships
Isabella and Alexander, for the purpose of exploring Baffin's
Bay, and inquiring into the Probability of a North-West
Passage.
By JOHN ROSS, K.S. Captain Royal Nary.
Printed fur Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, :sad Brown,
London.

From the LONDON GAZETTE of June 29.

BANKRUPTS.

R. P. Jackson, Liverpool, merchant, July 26, 29, and. Aug.
IC), at one, at the George Inn, Liverpool. ' Solicitors;
Messrs. Orred and Co. Liverpool ; and Messrs. Lowe and
Co. Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane.

J. Dobtll, Cr!snbroolc, Kent, brewer, July 6,7, and Aug.
10, at eltsen, at the George Inn, Cranhrook. Solicitors,
Mr. James, Millman-place, Bedford-row; and Mr. Kincaid,
Crdnbrook.

T. Pickton, Hammersmith, grocer, July IS, 20, and Aug. 10,
at ten, at Guildhall. Solicitors, Messrs. Woodward and
Co. Watling-street.

W. Hardy, Manchester, drysaltar, July 16, 17, and Aug. 10,
at nine, at the Star Inn, Manchester. Solicitors, Mr. Wal-
ker, Manchester; and Mr. Ellis; Chancery-lane.
A. Allen, Pall-Mist!, calico-furniture-manufacturer, July 6,
51, and Aug. 10, at twelve. at Guildhall. Solicitor, Mr.
Cookncy,Casle-street, Holborn.
S. W. Woolrith, Stafford, druggist, July 5, at five, 6,4 t ten,
at the White Hatt and Star Inn, Uttoxeter, and Ang. 10,
at eleven, at the Swan Inn, Stafford. Solicitors, Messrs.
Warner and Cu. Uttoxeter ; and Mr. Knowles, New Inn.
It. Eddleston and E. Eddleston, Blackburn, cotton-mann-
. facturers, Jnly 16, 17, at six, and Aug. 10, at eleven, at the
Mitre Inn, Fishergate, Preston. Solicitors, Messrs. Arison
and Co. Castle-street, Holborn; Mr. Ainsworth, • Black-
burn ; and Mr. Illackhurst, Preston.

I{. Lanham, Dorking, Surrey, grocer, July C, 10, and Aug:
10, at ten, at Guildhall, Solicitors, Messrs. Russell and
Co. Last-street, Bqough.
C. lisw, Minoreis, victualler, July S. 10, and Aug. 10, st
twelve, at Guildhall. Solicitors, Messrs. Thompson and
Co. Leman-street, Goodma!i's-fielda. •
DIVIDENDS.
July 99, W. Harvey, Warrington, four-dealer—July 22,
T. Hied, Bishopwearmouth,. ship-owner--July 520, J. Bul-
locke, Catherine-street, button-seller--July 21, C. Smith,
Bristol, boot-maker—July 24, T. Weaver, High Holborn,
floor-cloth-nianufacturer—July 13, J. Nosed, and J. Burch,
Jewry-street, wholesale stationers-31d)- 24, W. Savage, Cor-
poration-row, watch-maker—July 24. M. Ohren and M. C.
Ohren, Broad-street, Ratcliffe, t.itioliers—July 94, J. O.
Mosley and H.. 1. Keach, Sitinioutlt-place, manufacturers of
ornamental toys—July 94, W. Aldhant, Borotigh-hills Mill,
Great. Totham, miller—July '22 it. Swani., Gainshorough,
merchant—July 20, C. Carr, Bridge-treet, jeweller—July
21, J. Millar, Liverpool, merchant—July 20, J. Peel,
C.
Harding, and W. Willock, Fazeley, manufacturers of cutto,,.

CERTIFiCATES—Jut.v 20'.
J. Lomas, Fetter-lane, tavern-keeper—E. Kelly., Black
Lion-lane, Paddington, builder—J. Barnes, Port,ca,
H. Daniel, Warren-street, coach-maker—L. U. Standish,
Bishopsgate-street Without, straw-hat manufacturer--R.
Blachford„ Little Tower-hill, Stationer—q. Pralie, juin. and
J. Bothwell, Ilailiwe.ll, calizo-printers—W. 3opson and C.
Wignall, Liverpool, turpentine-distillers—H. ',Nlunio, Upper
Thames-street, Peake, Pendletun, wine mei--
ehant—J. Bates, Leybourn, miller.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jumz 29.

HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OF WALES y.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL AND COUNT MUNSTER._.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved, that the Bill 1
which had been tiled by the plaintiff in this case,
might be dismissed, with costs to be taxed by the
Master. This was a bill filed by her RoyelHi4h-
ness the Princess of Vales, in which it was stated,
that the late Duke of Brun,wick had signed, and
delivered to her Royal Highness, a promissory
note, dated August 24, 1814, for the re-payment
of a large sum of money in 1816, together with in-
terest thereupon, and that his Grace had also sign-
ed, and delivered to her, another promissory note,
bearing date also August 24, 1814, assioing to her
the sum of 15,000 French kills, at 24 French livrrs
each. The Duke of Brunswick- had since died,
and the present noble defendants were named ex-
ecutors under the will, It would be recollected
that more than a twelvemonth ago, a 11106011 had
been made to the Court, on behalf of the defend-
ants, for an order of Court calling upon the Royal
plaintiff to produce a certain instrument before the
answer was put in. On that occasion Count Mun-
ster had made an affidavit, stating that he had
observed certain peculiarities in the instruments
he had seen 5 and particularly in that written in
the Fre•nch language, and that be had remarked
that the signature of the Duke of Brunswick was
not written as his Grace had been accustomed to
sign his name. It was therefore prayed, that the
answer should not Le put in until a particular in-
strument should be produced. An order of Court
was then given to the effect required ; but not-
withs.andini; that order, the plaintiff bad tit vtr

produced the instrument, and the defendants had
been unable ti) put in any answer, and which was,
perhaps, a mote impor•ant considetation, had
been unable to administer A farthing of the kinds
in their hands: the Court would, therefore, see
what a predicament the dciendants were placed
in. Since the original motion for the productioo
of the instrument was made, and Ote nid:r given,
tour terms had elapsed, and no reason had been
assigned by the plaintiff wily it had not been 1:01/1
plied with. Unless some steps were taken by the
Court, the defendants might continue in this situ-
ation tor ten years to come, and the case world
remain under litigation. Under ail these cit CUM-
stances, he moved that the bill so filed should be
dismissed with costs.

Sir A. PIGGOTT and Mr. HEALD followed on
the same side.

Mr. MARTIN appeared AS Counsel on behalf of
her Royal Highness. 'He conceived that this
matter lay in a very narrow compass, and that a
question of practice merely was to be decided.—
Whatever might be the amount of the demand,
that consideration, he was convinced, would have
but very little weight With the Court. With re-
spect to the order which had been made for the
production of the instrument, he thought that, at
least, it %%ionid be admilted that it was novel in its
nature ; but it was at the some time one which, of
course, all persons were bound to obey. IVtiat,
however, he wished to impress upon the Learned
Gentlemen on the other side -was, that this ordet
was in no manner mandatory upon her Royal High-
ness to produce the instrument, and therefore there
bad not in fact-been- any disobedience:on the Inuit
of the Royal plaintiff. The terms of that order
were, that the defendants should have a fortnight
" sfter the production of the instrument," to
put in their answer ; but there was not the
slightest compulsion upon her Royal Highness to
produce it. Without going into the question, he
should therefore content himself with maintain-
ing, that this was a mere matter of practice, and
as such that the Bill ought not to be dismissed,
If the object of the defendants had been to get rid
of this Bill, they had taken an erroneous course,
and it Was evident that no order for a dismissal
could be made upon the present motion. The
step which should have been taken by the de-
fendants to gain their object, ought to haie been
to have obtained an order, declaring that Within
a given time the instrument Should be produced,
or that the Bill should be dismissed. This course,
however, had not been pursued; and he there-
fore submitted with confidence, looking upon the
former order, and observing that the plaintiff had
been guilty of no disobedience, that this applica-
tion ought to be refused.

. .
Mr. SHADiVELL followed on the same.side„ and
contended that it any delay hall,talkeo place the
defendants alone were to. lifaine;:froe if -they
thought fit to complain, they might to have put in
their ansWer, end' then riodelay,could have taken
place. Itwould certainly. he::a new teatit're.in the
practice of the Court tet make the' order at played'
tur.. . - - • •
The•SnLICITOtt-GaN,l3RAtlimPired,- .o.le .order,
although perhaps it might have:been rather novel
in its battik, was deciaed upon
.8 principle, the
justness It which would not tor a moment be.
disputed. :
The LORD CHANCELLoR.—This motion arose
out of a h ll filed by her Royal Highness the
Princess of Wales, in which she stated herself to
he a erethtur to her late brother the Duke of
Brunswick, and prayed payment at certain sums
of money upon two Promissoi y Notes. Count
Monster had made an affidavit bringing it into
question whether this was a red debt, and bete
his Lordship begged to observe, that this might
he the ca,e, without in the least prejndicing her
Royal Highness. In one sense, perhaps, the
order then made by the Court might be consi-
dered novel ; butt there was no duty more sacred
or more incumbent upon Learned Judges to per-
' form, than that of looking upon ail suitors in
Courts of Lan, or Equity, whatever might be their
rank or station in lite, in the light of subjects only,
to whom equal jusice might to be distributed. He
was very ready to allow that it was not usual for
the defendant to call for the production of papers
by the plaintiff.; but he had taken the trouble to
look to the principal text writers upon the subject,
and had found that where the defendant was will-
ing to pledge himself upon oath, and stated rea-
sons entficiently weighty to satisfy the minds of
the Court, there was then a justification for the
order. At the time when the order was made,
he had folly explained the reasons by which he
was actuated in so doing. With respect to the
present motion, he could not at this moment say
what was the practice of the Court, as it was
the consequence of this novel order. He should, '
therefore, be induced rattier to decide this gaes-
tion principle than upon precedent. What,
then, was the principle to he followed in this case ?
'rite rale of the Court constantly was, if a plaintiff
did not, after the mill filed, take any step within
three term*, that, atter having been called upon
by the defendant's answer, the Bill should he dis-
missed. It was true, that iu the present instance
there had been no answer put in, but he thought
that fact made no material difference wader the
peculiar circumstances of this case. But it was
a matter of possibility, that as the regular prac-
tice could not be ascertained sonic mistake might
arise in making an order for an immediate dis-
missal of the Bill. With this impression, he should
direct that the ius:rument in question be produced
on or before the thiid seal. or the bill dismissed,
with liberty to the plaintiff either on the first or
second seal to snake application upon affidavit for
further time. This was the order which be thought
at the present moment would be the „to," ,dvis.
able under the peculiar circumstances, but he

[PRICE SEVENPENCE.

should defer his_ final .decision until to-morrow
morning. If, however, nothing more was said
respeoting the case, it might be concluded that be
intended to make no alteration in this decision.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 99.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. F. C. ‘lllit.t.tAms moved for a. Rule to shut
cause ki.by a Chinni,' Information should not be
filed against is Gentleman', named Campbell, for
toiog language towards a Gentleman, named
Nicholas Harris, tending to incite him to fight a
duel —The affida,its on which the motion was
made stated, that both parties were Officers in the
Navy, residing at East-Lou, in the county of
Cornwall, and Mr. Harris having occasion to ap-
ply to the Mayor of that Borough, to complain
of certain harbour dues demanded in the port of
East-Loo, he was met the next day by Mt.
Campbell, who a,fdressed him in vet y offensive
language, and called him an insignificant puppy,
and used other gross epithets, which the Learned
Counsel did not think it right to mention.
The Court, under the circomstancei mentioned,
granted a Rule to bliew cause.

MR. LOBBETT'S ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND.

WRIGHT V. DOLBY.

Mr. CHITTY moved for a rule to she.v cause
why the trial of this cause, %shich is an action for
a libel published against the plaintiff in Cobbett's
Two-penny Weekly Rvgihter, should not be post.;
potted until the Sittings huts next Michetelmas
Tuns, on the affidavit of Mr. William Cohbett,
jun. of the absence of a material and necessary
witness, namely Mr. William Cubbett, stn. now
residing in America, who was expected to :strive
in England towards the fall of the present year,
as the deponent verily bt.lit.ved from a lette-r re-
cently received from his father.
The COURT gr apt ed a rule to shew cause.