The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MOUSE OF LORDS.

The Lord CHANCELLOR, the Earl of ELDON,
Lords REDESDALE and MANNERS, and some other
Peers, attended this morning to hear the further ar-
guments in the Wellesley case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed their Lord-
ships on behalf of the respondents in his usual strain.
of impetuous and lofty eloquence. The speech of
the Learned Gentleman appeared to produce a great
impression, and occasionally some amusement in the
House.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
LYNDRAY V. PERCY.

This was an application by Mr:HORNE, for an order
compelling the defendants, who are the personal re-
presentatives of the late Earl of Lyndsay, to pay into
Court the sum of one thousand pounds, which
they had received under the following circumstances :
Shortly after the death of- the testator, the Earl of
Lyndsay, his representatires finding that the assets
in their hands were not adequate to the payment of
his debts, applied to the Countess of Lyndsay for
her jewels, which they conceived were part of the
personal property of the testator, and therefore liable
to be administered. Lady Lyrtdsay being very anxious
not to part with the jewels, agreed to pay to the
defendants the sum of 1000/. in lieu of them, and
the present application was, that the money so re-
ceived might not be paid into Court.
Mr. SUGDEN, on the part of the defendants, woald
not oppose the application, as far as respected the sum
of 10001., although he had instructions to resist the
motion in its original forM, which required that a
much larger sum should be paid in.
His HoNouß directed that the 1,000!. he paid into
Court within three weeks:
THE KING'S THEATRE.
• BERNALSCONI V. WATXRS.
_

This was an application by Mr. SUGDEN on behalf
of the plaintiffs, the assignees of the Messrs. Cham-
bers, for an order to enlarge publication.
The Learned Gentleman stated that his clients
had consented to allow the defendants to put in
an amender • and, as the answer so put in by
them consisted of 800 folios, it became necessary to
revise the interrogatories which had been previously
prepared. He assured the Court that his clients, so
far from seeking for delay, were most anxious that
the cause should come to a speedy hearing, as, until
it was decided, they would be unable to sell or dis-
pose of the King's Theatre.
After an Ineffectual opposition from Mr.
WHEATLY,

His HoNotllt enlarged publication until the second
seal after term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
SALE OF A CADETSHIP.
THU KING V. SUTTON, DESPARD AND OTHERS.

This was an indictment against the defendants for
the illegal sale of a cadetship, in the East India Com-
pany's service, to a person named Bach. The trial
which took place at Guildhall on Thursday, the Gth
of March, was fully reported in the SUN of that day.
It will be remembered that alkthe defendants, except
Captain Despard and Captain Prescott, pleaded
guilty to the indictment, and the Jury returned a
verdict of guilty against Despard, bat acquitted Mr.
Prescott.

The COMMON-SERGEANT ROW move(' the Court
on behalf of Captain Despard, to set aside
the verdict on the ground of a mis-trial, one
of the jurors on the trial being an alien, and by
the 3d section of the Act of 6 Geo. IV. c. 50., it
was enacted, that no person who was not a natural
born subject of the King, should be qualified to
serve on Juries, unless in cases where the party
under trial being himself an alien, required to be
tried by a Jury composed of an equal number of
English Men and Foreigners.
Mr. Justice BAILEY—What do you think would
be the consequence if a person served on a Jury
who was excommunicated by the spiritual Court, or
was otherwise disqualified? '
The COMMON SERJEANT—My Lord, according to
the Jury Act, I should contend that it would be a
mistrial.

Mr. Justice BAILEY—What would be the con-
sequence Mr. Common Sergeant if the Jury had
been all aliens, and returned a verdict, after they
had been sworn and not challenged ?
The CommoN SERGEANT: this would also amount
to a mis-trial. The Act of Parliament says, that no
person could serve on a jury who answered to the
disqualifications pointed out in the Act.
Lord TENTERDEN was of opinion that the cir-
cumstance of one of the jurors being an alien might
have been a good ground for challenge at the time,
but it was no ground for disturbing the verdict. The
jury being special, the defendants had an oppor-
tunity of finding out who the jurors were, and of
challenging, if any cause for challenge arose. The
defendant not having taken advantage of this oppor-
tunity the verdict must stand. It was also worthy
of remark, that if this was a mis-trial as regarded
Capt. Despard, who was found guilty, it was also 4
mis-trial as respected Captain Prescott, who was
acquitted; and if the Court granted the rule now
applied for, it would be competent for the prosecu-
tors to come into Court and ask for a new trial on
Capt. Prescott.
The other Judges concurred in the opinion of
Lord Tenterden, and the rule was refused.

The judgment of the Court was then moved by
the SOLICITOR-GENERAL on all the defendants, and
a number of affidavits in extenuation of their con-
duct, were put in and read, on behalf of the several
defendants.

The affidavits having been gone through, a conver-
sation took place as to the right of the Counsel fel
he defendants, who had suffered judgment by de-
ault, to be heard in reply.
The COURT, however, decided that, as in ordinary
cases, the counsel for the prosecution should be heard
in reply.

MT:BROUGHAM then proceeded to address the
Court on behalf of the defendant Despard, raid will
be followed by the counsel for the other defendants.
The case is expected to occupy the Court until its
rising.