The Sun.
London, England, 1817-12-18 00:00:00

NES.

'I, i lye FELLIGENC .

COCIIT:OF Dgc. 17.

.3t7DGMET.:-:'Cil.:Ull EN'S CoNCoRDANCE.

JOSEPH .XN'r) oTiturtsV.'NUTTAL,

AND I,I3HER.

The,Lotto CII:4*ELLOR dissolved the injunc-
tion, allowing the defendants to go, into the
market with ;their seventh editinict lit the satire
time ordering. that they .Shoilld keep an ac-
count of the sale awl profits, so as to enable them
to account to the plaintiffs for the same, if they
proved their, iight by an action at -law, and that
the plaintiffs shonld forthwith bring their action
o Cry that quelt-ion.
This judgment has given great satisfaction to the
body or boiiks'elivrs.

INIPORTANT CASE

THEt 13ANK OF ENGLAND IN THIi DhAtTER OF JA:AES

%v AL KR IL

Thio is a question of great interest to the cons-
mewial part Of the community. was an ap-
plication made by Sir ARTHVEC PIGOOT, on be-
half of the Governor and Company of the Bank
of England, prayinu° that they -might be allowed
w prove'
a, debt of between 25 and .26 thousand
pounds, by their clerk, Mr. John Spaikes Cox,
und'e'r the Commission that had issued againseMr.

Walker, without producing the power of attorney
under Which he. acted : Aliat• the assignees who
had been chosen might be dismissed, and that the'
Commissioners. might be ordered to proceed to
the nomination of others ; and that. Mr. Cox
might, on'the part of the Bank, be admitted to
vote in the choice of such Assignees. The reti-
tioil also prayed that the costs might be decreed
to be paid out of the Bankrupt's estate.
Sir ARTHUR, in the course of a long argument,
observed he catdd not conceive how the Bank
could be objected to proving, by their. Officers,
under the general power of attorney 4 as was the
case with respect to every other Corporation.
The debt ot the Bank amounted to more than ail
the other creditors together ; and although it was
not disputed, yet they were refused the opportu-
nity of voting in the choice of. Assignees.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Sir Arthur, I region-
ber in a case at Niai Prius wellad much (la-Tufty
with a man, who called himself Adidavit-maker.to
the Morchauls of London, .
Sir ARTHUR resumed—An objection was.abemt
to be made before the Commigsioners,,,bo,t which .
was withdrawn ; . and the Solicitor to, the, Bank
feeling, no doubt, that Mr. Cox would be allowed
to prove, had left the Board ; but whenN4.-COx
went forward, lire was not suffered to,do•so, or to
vote for Assignees; and. hence arose the present
quiestion. 10 support of the motion, he quoted
the case of Bowles, which bad been mis reported
in Vesey's lieport,, .and on which the Commis-
Siouers, grounded their objections ; and also. that
of Er-punte fai...vis, in both of which orders, the
Lord Chancellor had decreed. that the Agent, un-
-1 der a power of attorney, should be allowed to

prove.
Mr. CooKE followed, mid took a similar line of
aLigiftneot.,
The Lone C!poscst.t.oa inquired whether it
was meant to he contended', that the power of at-
torney that r ()led it) the above cities, the first in
1804 aiul the Last in ISt.coin!! Ito So in the
present case;. although the stamp-duty had in-
crease,d tenfold.
Sir SAMUEL RDMILLY and Mr. MosT3ouE an-
swered, that 'that was precisely the objection in::
the present case, and the grounds on which they
argued against the 'motion.
Some turtherconveation took place between
the Loit[Chancellor and. Mr. Cooke,`as to the
effect an increase of stamp duty would have; but.
both the Noble Lord and Mr. Cooke declined giv-
ing an opinion.
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr. MONTAGUE.II3Ving at-
.
Kited at great lengtl) against the motion, on the
ground that the Bank must liave a specific power
of attorney to enable
_therm to prove, and also that
the Clerk having refused to producehis:authotity
to the Commissioners, they were
.not to .blame,
as well as against the payment of costs.
The Lon? CtIANCELLoR noticed tire import-
ance of the present question, as well as the tlifl!
cultv that arose in it, and postponed judgment
unt This Lordship had looked into the Act.of the
sth Geo. 11.

courtT OF JUNG'S BENCH, DEC, 17.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

STONE V. SNMPSON.
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings, and stated
that this was" an action against the defendant
for a breach of promise to intermarry:with the.
plaintiff.
Mr. 'forms stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff was a young lady, now ahout.3o years of
age, diStinguished by mental accomplishments
and personal charms, the daughter of die late Ad-
miral Stone,, who had been in. the British
.service,
but had obtained his Majesty's permission to serve
under the &id Portugal. "The defendant was
•a gentleman now about 40 years of age, and at the
tithe of the transaction in question, was Secretary
to Lord' Strangford, Envoy to the Portuguese
Court. Prior to the year 1808, the defendant had
been intioduced to the family of Allytiiral, Stone,
then at List-oh, and after sonic time he declared
himself- the t.rofessed adinirer of
.Miss•St,iiie, and
was received as such by her father. Iu the year
1808, the Preneh having invaded Portugal; the
Braonza
,Court removed to the Brazils, whither
Adiiiiral Stone and tastily followed, as did the,de-
fendant in' the suite of Lord Stiangford. The
,
defendant gain' renewed his addresses to, Miss
Stone on the shores of the Rio Janeiro, and vas,
in•fatt considered by all parties as the intended
spouse of. the lady. This intimacy in the plain-
tiff s family continued until the year 1812., when
her!ather died, and then it was determined by
Mrs;Stone to rt.rturn Willi her daughter to'Eng-
land; but pilot to her departure, the. (:eten'tfant,
as au a4suranee of his faithful 4,ttachment to the
plaintiff,, gave her the followiti4 written promiie of
marriage I hereby soluinnly promise to marry
Miss Anna Stone ; anti furher &dare, that I
~tiiil never espouse any WOman whilst she is alive.
(Signed) J. T. Sampson."—After a tenter patt-
ing, and an interehauge of the most solemn
pledges of inutiud hdelity, 'Miss Stone left the
Brazils, and arrived in England. During liter ag-