The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-12 00:00:00

OFFICIAL VALUE fir EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO

MEXICO AND THE STATES OF SOUTH AMERICA.
British and Irish Produce and Manufactures.
1822 £3,867,95918 011825 £8,206,812 2 4
1823 ...... ... 5,618,771 14 6 1826 4,363,473 13 6
1821 '7,555,721 14 11 1827 6,383,950 0 7
Foreign and Colonial Merchandise.
1822 £122,384 12 51825 £175,739 17 5
1823 153,666 2 1 18235 167,621 1 '7
1824 301,888 8 3 1827 218,213 14 1
Aggregate of British and Foreign Merchandise Exported.
1822 ..£3,990,344 10 11825 £8,682,551 19 9
1823 5,802,437 16 '; 1826 4,531,094 15 1
1824 7,85'7,610 3 2 1827 6,672,163 14 8
DECLARED VALUE OF BRITISH AND IRISH PRODUCE •NII

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships sat again, this morning, in a
Committee of Privileges, on the interminable Leigh
Peerage question. Several witnesses were examined
to prove the existence of the monument in Stone-
leigh Church. The inquiry had not concluded when
our Reporter came away.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT.
FITZGERALD V. STEWART ♦ND ANOTHER.

His HONOUR gave judgment upon the demurrer
in this important case, which occupied the attention
of the Court for some days in this and the
last . week. The Bill was filed against the de-
fendants for an account of the produce of -certain.
consignments from the West Indies, and it also
prayed that they might be restrained from applying
the produce of any further consignments of the same
nature, which they may receive, to the liquidation
of any private debts owing to themselves.
The defendants put in a demurrer, on the ground
of want of equity.
It appeared from the charges in the bill that the
plaintiff, who is the widow of the testator named in the
cause, was the first inrsimbrancer on his estates in
the West Indies to a large amount. There was
also a second incumbrancer. A bill was filed in
Jamaica for the administration of the testator's
property, and an order was in consequence made,
appointing Messrs. Stephenson, receivers. These
gentlemen were directed under the order to trans-
mit consignments to this country for the purpose of
paying to the plaintiff the amount of her annuity, and
also the interest upon other charges, which she had
on:the estates. Baily and Stephenson appointed the
defendants,who are merchants in London, thei ragents,
for receiving the consignments and paying the pro-
duce to Mrs. Fitzgerald. The bills of lading
which were delivered to the Captain of the ship,
stated that the consignments were made to the de-
fendants by the plaintiff's order. From 1819 to
1821, the plaintiff regularly received her demand;
but since 1825, the defendants had applied the
produce of the consignments to the liquidating a
private debt due to them from the receivers,
Messrs. Bailey and Stephenson. The bill charged
that these parties were colluding between them-
selves to apply these consignments to purposes
different from those contemplated by the or-
der of the Court in Jamaica, and in direct
violation of the trust reposed in them. His
Honour was clearly of opinion, that the defend-
ants, under the peculiar circumstances of this ease,
as stated in the Bill, were liable to account to the
plaintiff for the produce of the consignments, and that
the demurrer must therefore be over-ruled.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

FAIRMAN V. KING.

This was an action for slander. The plaintiff is a
surgeon, and the defendant a chemist, residing at
Norfolk. The slanderous words were to the effect
that the plaintiff, Mr. Fairman, had forged a bill of
exchange. The defendant suffered judgment to go
by default, and a writ of inquiry having been issued,
a verdict was returned for the plaintiff with only Is.
damages.
During the last Term a rule was obtained to shew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, on
the ground of the damages being insufficient ; also
on the ground that the Jury had acted under an im-
proper influence, having accepted of an entertain-
ment from the defendant immediately after the trial
took place, at which eight of the Jurymen had got
through ten bottles of wine.
The COMAION SERGEANT now appeared to show
cause -against the rule, and read the affidavits of se-
veral of the Jurymen, in which they swore that
their verdict was perfectly impartial ; and that as to
the entertainment• given by the defendant, they
knew nothing of it until the trial was over, and
then having come from distant par 6 of the country,
they merely steps in at the defendant's solicitation to
take some refreshment bef6re their return to their re-
spective homes.
The Couwr :diseharged the rule, but to mark its
displeasure at the conrse.pursued by the .defendant
in entertaining the Jury, even after the trial, refused
to discharge the rule with costs.