The Sun.
London, England, 1828-10-29 00:00:00

month without any accounts from the seat of war via
Brailow and Berlin. The only Russian accounts we
procured came by Odessa, to which place they were
transmitted from the seat of war by sea. We have
no reason for believing that the roads by Brailow
have been opened, and therefore we can come to
no other conclusion than that this news,
to be true,
must have come by Odessa ; and if it came by
Odessa it cannot be authentic, so far as facts and
dates are concerned, for it is impossible to complete
the express by this route la 17 days to London..
—Third. This intelligence is undeserving of
credit because it is contradictory and inconsist-
ent. One account, said to be received by the
Russian Embassy, states that the Turks were in-
duced to make a sortie for the purpose of facilita-
ting the entry of reinforcements and supplies,
when a sanguinary and successful attack was made
upon them, and Varna carried at the point of the
bayonet. The other account, which is evidently
of Hamburgh or Berlin manufacture, states that on
the 7th instant " the Russian corps, dozing the
night, penetrated into the city, and surprised the
Turks"—that Vey were so much alarmed that they
threw down their arms, and abandoned the town.
Neither of these accounts is satisfactory—both can
scarcely be true. Fourth. Neither of these accounts
is reconcileable with that of the last bulletin of the
2d October. In that document it is stated that the
Turks had thirty thousand men in an entrenched
camp on the north side of :Varna, who had, in a de-
structive battle on the 30th ult., defeated the
Russians, killed several distinguished officers under
Prince Eugene of Wirternberg, and compelled that
general to fall back. In these accounts from Ham-
burgh no mention is made of this corps, and the
troops in the garrison are reported only at 6,000
men. Supposing that the Turks had lost three thou-
sand of their original garrison, that they had re-
ceived no reinforcements, and that consequently the
I whole force in Varna, amounted to about 9,000 men,
could this small force have resisted the Russians for
nearly two months ? It is absurd. And yet we
must believe this, or believe that the remainder of
the Turks found in the fortress after its surrender,
satd to be 6,000, is a fabrication like the other parts
of this conflicting intelligence. These, therefore,
are our reasons for disbelieving the intelligence from
Berlin and Hainburgh by the steam-packet, which
had been put on board after the packet had sailed.
Varna may have fallen, it is not impossible, Adrian-
ople may be in ruins, and Constantinople burnt, nei-
ther of these events are impossible, but the manlier
in which this capture has been communicated, and
all the circumstances connected with it, leave us to
hope and believe that the account is a contemptible
fabrication.—Morning Journal.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Orr. 28.

RX-PARTS lIROIILRY, IN RE LITCIIFIRI,D, A BANTR/1.7.

Mr. ROSE stated this to be a petition of appeal
from a decision of the Vice-Chancellor, who had dis-
Missed a former petition against the commission,
without hearing the other side.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if there was not an
indictment for conspiracy now pending?
Mr PEMBERTO?i, who opposed the petition, said
there was; but it was the wish of both parties, and
it was the interest of the party he represented, that
this petition should now be disposed of.
Mr. ROSE then stated the facts of the petition.
Mr. Bromley, the petitioner, had certain tide-deeds
of the bankrupt's as a security fora loan he had made
to him. He afterwards arrested him for a further
advance, and while he was in a lock-up house under
that arrest, the circumstances took place which led
to the present application. They Were detailed in an
affidavit made by-one Brooks, who stated that he
had been applied to for the purpose of procuring bail
to Mr. Bromley's action, for the bankrupt. That in
consequence of some difficulty in getting the bail to
justify, a meeting was appointed between Brooks
and Edwards, the bankrupt's attorney, which took
place at the back of the Elephant and Castle, where
Brooks informed the attorney, that one of the bail
was then an uneerticated bankrupt, and that conse-
quently if he should be opposed, he could not justify.
—Edwards then said, the bankrupt was very de-
airous to avoid committing an act of bankruptcy, by
remaining in custody, and that Brooks suggested if
he was to be a bankrupt at all, he had better be
made so by one of his friends, and asked if Mr. Dunn,
the other bail, who had already gone some lengths
to serve him, would not strike a docket. Edwards
said, if he would, he (Edwards) should have the
working the commission, and appointed to meet
Brooks at the lock-up-house, where he said Dunn
would be with the bankrupt. They met afterwards
at the place appointed, when on its being pro-
posed to Dunn that he should strike a docket, he
said he could not, for that the bankrupt did not owe
him a shilling. Some further conversation ensued ;
Dunn said if a bankruptcy could be effected, he
would go as far as 1001. to serve Litchfield, and dis-
appoint Bromley. Edwards, upon this, undertook
to search the Bankruptcy-office, and left the house
with Dunn for that purpose. Soon afterwards a
commission was issued, in which Dunn was the pe-
titioning creditor. Is was this commission that Mr.
Bromley sought to b:,ve set aside, on the ground
that it had been fraudulently concerted, and the evi-
dence upon which this was attempted was that con-
tained in Brooks's affidavit.
Mr. KNIGHT followed on the same side.
Mr. PEMBERTON opposed the petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR dismissed the petition,
with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Ocr. 28.
THE. KING V. JEEFERIES AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment against the defendants,
Joseph Jefferies, Henry Jefferies, and John Millet,
for a conspiracy to defer.: the recovery of a judg-
ment debt of 524-/. against the first named defendant
Joseph Jeffories, by removing and secreting his
property.
The Jury pronounced all the defendants Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Oct. 28
PARTON V. HICKMAN.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover a
sum of upwards of GU, the balance of his bill for
work and labour done as an attorney for the defend-
ant. The defence was, that the plaintiff had be-
trayed so much ignorance, and had bee►► guilty of so
much neglect in the proceedings which he had been
employed to conduct, and which had terminated un-
favourably to the defendant, that he was riot entitled
to recover any thing in compensation ; bat the evi-
dence upon this point not being solliciently strong
to satisfy the Jury, they returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.

COFFIN V. MORRIS.

This was an action to recover 34/. 15s. 6d., the
amount of the plaintiff's bill for lodgings, necessaries
and cash, furnished to the defendant's wife, who had
been deserted by him. The case was undefended,
and witnesses on the part of the plaintiff proved that
all the different items of the bill had been supplied.
The LORD CHIEF JumcE, however, told the
jury, that although a man who had turned his wife
out of doors was liable to pay any debt she might
contract for the necessaries of her existence, yet he
was not responsible for loans of money. They
would, therefore, deduct the advances of cash which
made a part of the present claim, and return a verdict
for the remainder, the whole of which appeared to
have been contracted for mere necessaries.
The Jury, under this direction, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 20/. 16s.