The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-06 00:00:00

.. 723 75 .. 733 75

.. 735

.. 977 50

Strasburg to Bale•••.
Avignon to Marseilles.- 766 25 . 772150 .. 766 25 • • 772 50

STATE TRIALS.-The arguments of
counsel in support of a new trial came to a close on
Friday, when the Attorney-General was heard in re-
ply on the part of the Crown. The Right Hon.
Gentleman was to resume his argument at two o'clock
on Saturday. The Repeal Association held a meet-
ing on Friday, but the proceedings were not of any
interest. The amount of the repeal rent for the week
was 1101.

THIS DAY'S= NEWS

HOUSE OF LORDS.-4THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. -The Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham; Lord Cottenham,
and Lord Campbell.
THE MARQUIS OF WATERFORD V. KNIGHT.
The arguments in this appeal, the facts of which we hare
alreadv:given in detail, were resumed, and occupied the House
the whole of the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY).
The Vice-Chancellor of England sat to-day at ten o'clock.
but in consequence of the absence of Mr. -Bethel!, who was
engaged in the House of Lords, the Court-rose before eleven
o'clock, having nothing to proceed with.

---
QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
CUSTOMS FRAUDS.-TRE QUEEN v. MOTTRAM AND WILLIAMS-
THE QUEEN v. BLAKE..
The defendants in these cases had. been convicted of con-
spiracy to defraud the revenue of certain Custom-house duties
payable on the importation of certain French goods. Thu
defendants Mottram and Williams had -been importers of
silks, gloves, flowers, &c. The defen-danf Blake had been a
landing-waiter. The parties were severally under recog-
nizance' to come up for judgment. _
Mr. JERVIS moved that the recognizances in all these
cases should be continued till next term.—Application granted.

THE QUEEN V. BENT.
The defendant in this case was a broker, and had been
convicted of appropriating to his own use certain sums of
money which had been entrusted to him -to effect an insur-
ance on certain goods shipped for Texas. - He was called up
for judgment early in the term, but did not-appear.
Mr. WARREN applied to have the recognizences of the de-
fendant and his sureties estreated. -
Lord DExmAx having looked over the affidavits, refused
the application on the ground that the service of notice on
the sureties had been insufficient. - -

EXCHEQUER COURT-.THIS DAY

perTi!:itsowraescoa\n,eracctoionnvbeiriosuatgiloint biny
dtahme
agplaeisnt
for
rs
JOHNSON AND WIFE V. MORLEY.
fianlsfeormaPau-
imprison-
ment.
Mr. LEE, for the plaintiffs, said that his client occupied
part of a house of the defendant in 'Warren-street, Fitzroy-
square, where he carried on the business of hair-dresser. He
entered in January, 1843, and, in March of the present year,
having neglected to pay his rer t, a distress was put in. Three
days after this, on the 25th, the defendant-came into the shop,
with a policeman, into whose custody he committed Mrs.
Johnson, for having removed a stove. The plaintiff pointed
to the stove, which had been put into the shop to replace
another which the defendant had removed, but Morley per-
sisted in arresting her. She was accordingly taken to the
Albany-street Police-office, where the insp-ector dismissed the
case, expressing his belief that no felony_had been commit-
ted. The defendant, not yet satisfied, returned with plain-
tiff, still in custody, and assured himself that the stove was
his own.
Mr. HUMFREY appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not
guilty. •
Baron GURNEY, in summing up, remarkeil that the de-
fendant had failed to make such a concession as would have
excluded the action, and hived the jury would give such a
verdict as would protect the plaintiff from being taxed with
felony.
The jury gave a verdict fir the plaintiff—Damages
51.
(Sittings in Banco.) -
Motions to have conditional rules made absolute occupied
the Court during the day; but they were 'not of a nature to
call for particular notice.