The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-05 00:00:00

LTHE MOANING HERALD.]

Mr. Hunt, who preeiessis no mean share of that
shrewd ready understmdin44 which, like smill change,
C
ilifgeneolly more useful in tln c,aninon concerns of IA
than large notes, told smile home truths at Ilehester,
winch could not be very ',dateable to many.of hia
dience. 'There sppear, to have heOl'a; wurrdrrful &-
gm! of (amounting tOWlrat..'sonie would
designate Vulgarity) employed on at bides upon . this
,occasion ; and the Somersetshire folks, who, not only
AS cudgel-players, but in other reyects, arc reloads-
able for the thickness of their head:;, seem to have been
as in to the :dial) attacks of the blacking..
maker's tongue, as to the baek-ewords of their Wilt-
shire competitors. Among others, Mr. Hunt seems
to have floored the whole tribe of country.attornies,
with a %cries of wdl conceived, and
planted with judgment. These worthies, we suspect,
fount' as little sympathy from the ley-standees as mer-
cy from their antag,onist ; deserving, aS we believe they
for the most part tidily do, every word that has been
said of wd.t915,4. advi4moy when wo say that
there ate no greater pests in society than most, of these
people render themselves. No man can have lived
six months within reach of a country town, without wit-
neasinif Ow influence Which 0
v no,,sess,duplicity
d r s •
c is y wholr t ley Pr:lc-Ice, the cruc.ty am, -
misery, the dig-unions ion) heart-burningli which
they inflict. That there are liononrable esceptions
to general duiracteristic are .14 from deny-
ing; hut ithe ex.ceptions, we fear, are ,lost in the
crowd which exemplify the rule. Front the earliest
times, if. we consult the dramatists who have handed
down to tis the truest pictures of society, theehm sorter of
lawyer and otrogue have been somewhat synony»mirs.
The country practitioner, however, from less intercourse
with the trichs and quibbles of the Courts, was fi)r..
inerly less amenable to this opprobrium;_ 4nd from a
knowledge which he generally possessed of real pro-
perty, end of the wants and habits of his neighbours,
passed for a person of more consideration and credit
than the Bramble!, and Double.fees of the Inn.; 01,
Court.
Hot,
this
exception
hits king ceased to exist ;
and their ionnberg Raving become preposterous, new
m and less creditable ot es of ex iste nee have been
:sought.: _for, while, .cunning supplying the place
~,
-44"Ittlef 'they have betome little better than a tax
and ,riennite•upini the carrion-linty ; and, like the eagtels
spoken or in Scripture, are_ ready assembled wheie=
ever the rarease ia, to pounce upon ,and devour=it.

Those opposite events; ,a general election and insol-
vency (the one, by the by, generally leading to the
other), form die favourite haunts of these all-devour-
ing locusts; and while in both instances they profit as
much by their own blinders as by their rapacity, the
silly sheep, as Sir Robert Walpole describes the
country gentlemen of hi:; time, stand stupidly quiet to
be flattered and fleeced, by those who in the end often
purchase the estates which they have first dilapidated.
I'hat Mr. Hunt Bhould have teal the courage to de-
dare war against and oppose this numerous and
powerful body, 'is an offbnce that will not readily be
forgiven ; but if it has, as it probably will have, the
effect of in sonic degree stopping their career, and
opening men's ey'S to some of their practices, it will
not have formed one of tire least of those advantages
which the plain-spoken period of an deeti Ant gives
rise to.

[THE rams.]
The affairs of Colombia , have now assumed a cha-
racter which again 'renderS them highly interesting,
and the holdera of Colombian 'Bon& Must look for
some time with considerable' anxiety to the news Which
maybe expected from that quarter. The' revelt of
General Paez, though it does not, tend precisely to
the overthrow of the present Government, is likely,
notwithstanding, to occasion diStuibances which may
he productive of very considerable danger, and will
render impracticable all thoSe plans which Bolivar is
supposed. to have formed for assisting the Buenoa-
Ayreatis against their Brazilian enemies, tt is
now a considerable time since we inserted in the,
Brili,s4 Press an article, in which we endeavoured
to show that the same causes which had produc-
eel international 'disputes iii Europe., would pro-
duce the same effects in the Western hemiSphere.---;
While America hid only to contend With. one 'ene-
my, she continued united, and directed all her
efforts against the great :object of her jealousy but
since that enemy has ceased' to annoy her, since com-
mon danger no longer united'the different States in a
common league, the more immediate interests of the
separate Governments have naturally, developed them-
selves, int(' have produced that collision which we
anticipated among the different members of the Ame-
rican family. , It is thus that 'the various portions
of Colombia have continued united hitherto, without
attempting to separate ; but no sooner has the Spanish
power been completely overthrown in South America,
than the States which compose that Republic begin to
perceive that they have other interests besides those
which induced them to combine against Spain ; and
although military rivalship and, private ambition have
done touch, no doubt, in bringing about the late
events in Venezuela, we consider the whole. .of the
circumstances to he 'convincing proofs of.theatecuracy
of our views with regard to the probability of dis-
putes about to take place in South America. At thi.
same time, the very reasoning which led us to form
that opinion, must tend in a great degree te allay
the alarm which might be excited by any such distur-
bances. These events are not of a nature to produce
any of those, extensive revolutions in the state of these
nations, to which we have been accustomed during
the last forty years. Their contests will now subside
into 4 species of warfare similar to that which was;
;twat in Europe before the French B evolution, which
generally' teronnated by leaving hoth Inioiefi equally
enfetA,Aed, and :vvatl,prudmEtiw nn result treater than
the exchange of one . petty di:Arict fur another, or a.
slight extension, perhaps, of territory on the one side of
a disputed frontier. The contest in' Colombia is do-
mcstre, and seems to have for its object rather thein-
troduction of a federative system of government than
the dismemberment of the Colombian territories. The
chief features of the dispute arc not extremely different
from those which have distinguished the contest about
Monte Video. hi both t.,e;e:; the question whether
a particular district Ault continue, under one tioyern-
mem, or be separated'from it ; and the causes of. both
are the same---the contending interests of large dis-
tricts, which, Make them inclined to plaCe themselves
in a situation to maintain their particular interests,
without being associated with and infirm:iced by other
States, possessing other interest. In this state of
things, as in All great changes, after the main objects
have been accomplised,' there are ayariety of little
,points to be adjusteda certain balance of advantages
and disadvantages to be fixed—something to be ac-
complished, similar to those drainings which it is
necessary to - make, in' order to carry Or the writer
lodged in separate. hollows after a' flood--before things
can he restored to a tranquil and unembarrassed
course ; and this process may occasion trifling dis-
putes, which may turn out of considerable; lenbith, but.
not of a nature to produce extensive iniachief.
Republic of Colombia,' as obvious from the state-
ment which we published lately, is by no means itt sso
flourishing a condition as some have fancied. Extra-
vagant ideas have been entertained concerninr, the
prosperity of the' Snub American States, and it. is
likely that facts will be necessary to correct: theSe
ideas; but a steady and sober view of their
will tend as much to allay the groundlm slams
entertained on the subject, as it will be sure to
mllu dia.
.
pel all nhiie nOOOll3 convening; their inihounded
affluence.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S HENCE-I.—haw( 4.
imour.i.tu v. LUCAS, ANu,

Mr. Ca itsreatr. opened the pleadingS. •
Mr. Se arkr,Krr, in stating the ease, said there were arm do;
tendants in this ease, and though they had but one attorney (Mr.
Eickie), yet-be thought proper to take out seven different sum-
monses ; Aye ,0f the defendants had pleaded, a justification, all of
which might be indlittled in one-plea, yet this ingenious attorney
contrived to makelve different pleas, hi order to nitiltiply'the
coats of the suit. This was an &Idiot' of trespass, for taking with
force and violence certain property .out of a ship -of which!the
plaintiff was toaster. It appeared that the cargo in question had
hero shipped by Mr. Thornton front New South Wales, e4nsigned
to tho house, of ilupky and Litigum in London. When the Ship
arrived at Gran/mud, the plaintiff gave the bill of Wing to the
eensignee3, but refused to give gp the goods unless :paid his
freight; *hereupon, Ifopley and f,.ingant. took out an execution
on the goods at, the property of Mc. Thornton, who was their
debtor. The grinds were, in consequence thereof, seized by the
Sheriff, and sold for 19501. against the consent of the plaintiff,
Who wa,i not paid the freight. This action was brought against
the Sheriff and his dicers, Mr. Blade, and ilopley and Litigant,
to )(Tom the entire amount of the cargo.
11'1e roa. Searle% Maryatt and • Campbell, appeared. for ;the
t!',a1001i!, The Attorney-Cencral, the. Comma* Sergeant, Mr.
""theY, Mr. Pollock, and Mr. Chitty, for the defendants: it was
contended that the question was a matter of law, and nut a fit
ile4 t 4
be decided by a BarlettJury. Mr. Barlett contended, that
the fact, whether or not the goof& were subject to an etts7ution
by r: re e'inaigutr, waa entirely fir the consideration of the Jury.
Tar "An9S "attar .Inaroci that the question for the jury
was tvbether, by the hill 4 ladin thegoods were bona fide the
thge)sitectitt:on
their to take ptataeastort of the goods
without paying the freight.
was
.a
rIMAar Jury. eePtillttal *verdict for the phumiff,....datn. ages 1.960 L.
SALE of a 8111P,;41116RP,PitEgENTATiolki -ALLIWED.

FLINN th, mometiow: -
The ArtclltlitY-GZSICH,AL 'stated, that this wail an '4'044
founded an an agreement, for the sale of ei ship or barque, collet)
the Brixton, • in old ileielr*hiciiiisd birth iondemued as

This ship the Defendant -hart, hy an agreement in writing, pur.
chased from'the Plaintiff for 2,000 t -of which sum 2001. was to
he paid in hand at the time of the sale, 800/. in a certain time
after; and for the remaining 1;000/: a bill was given, payable at
the period therein mentirmed.—The Defendant hail accordingly
taken possession of the ship, put her, into a dry docki examined
her, and made certain
,alterations in her; and at length ref Used
to implement 'his:bargain: In cOnsequenre of refusal, the
Plaintiff was under the necessity of selling the ship at a lower
rate to another person ; and the present action was brought for
the difference between the price at whit"' the vessel had been
sold to the Defendant/ and that at which she had been. sub-
sequently sold. r Captain Stevens, who had been some time
master of the vessel, and bed made a voyage in her to Quebec;
a short time before the sale, which teak place in the course
of the last year, said he Was present when the ildetidaut
came to enquire about the ship, along with a shipwright. lie
represented to the defendant all the faults that he knew about the
lie, bet he bad said, that she was a very fair ship.
ship. He would not any that he had repows,trd the vessel tisbs,
a very good o
CHIEF JusTica..AneotAs the agreement was that the shp
Was to he taken with all faults, the defendant must prove fraud,
or he does nothing.

Mr. Shiels, and other witnesses, then proved the sale of the
ship, in Mardi 1825, at a reduced price ; and a resale at an ad-
vance upon the'piereding sale. The vessel had been repaired at
Shields, and was noW in the coal trade,
Mr. seNitLETT remarked, that the vessel had been vitt unild
a rCpreamitation that it was a good one, 'and now it was alireed on
all hands that it was shad one. The single question wao,;,'Whetber
she was a good shill, according to the representation.made at the
tittle of the ask.

The AtTORWEY,GEtiptAL said, that Stith was not the ques-
tion, because the contract was ewes* that the ship was to he
taken with all her defects, and there waa not the slightest liroof of
fraud in the case. He hoped they would be of opinion that the
,defendant loud no ease Whatever.
ti e'Lltb 6.141, JUSTICE observed, that in thi‘Caslo the
Jury, bethre they emit(' find fur the defendant, must satisfied
that there was evidence of fraud on the part of the phiinta, be-
cause, froni the termi of the contract, nothing short of that wwlqe,
clear the defendant. There was Mime little difference betwee4o6,
witnesses; but this waa a description of 'case which the Jury le d
understand a gteat deal better than be did, and he would therchtre
leave it to them, without further continent; although, if the Jury
required it, lie was ready to go over the whole of the evidence.
The Jury, after consulting for a few minutes, found for the
plaintiff.-:-Damages 6761,

VIOE.CHANCELLOR'6 COURT, JuLy 4.
3111RILAY V. NEAT!! AND crnints.

The SoLimon-Gen teat.'moved, on behalf of the plaintiff,
Mt. John Murray, the bookseller,. for .an injunction; to restrain
the defendants froM selling, or. otherwise disposing of, certain en-
gravings mentioned in the pleadings. Mr. Murray having pur-
chased a poem' ftom• the Rev. Mr; Crabbe, determined to have it
illustrated by engravings taken from designs coedited by Mr.
Westall. accordingly employed Mr. heath as.engraver, and
paid hint a sum of £OOOl. Gtr his labour. During the progress
of the work the engravings were introduced into it from time to
time. Mr. Until, however, unfortunately became a bankrupt,
and the other defendants, who were his assignees, proposed to sell
some of these engravings, contending that- Mr. ileatly had a right
to retain a given number of impressions to his own use, which
they insisted on disposing of as part of his property, for the be-
•nefit of his creditors. Rut this was a claim for which there
could he no foundation. If a man were the owner of a fine paint
ing or drawing, and employed an engraVer to engrave a plate from
it, and• if he paid him for. his labour in so doing, he (the Solidtor-
General) was at a loss to. know what right that engraver bad to
appropriate to his own use a given number of the impressions. If
he employed a -printer to print a hook for him, what right would
the printer have—so he was paid for his labour—to retain a given
number of copies of the work to himself? Or suppose he em-
ployed an artist to form arnould,..for the purpose of taking casco
of some rare subject of antiquity, why shoold the modelist be
allowed to keep 10 or 15 of the Venue's that were to emerge from
the mould which he had been paid for coediting?
• Mr.- llestn.—Fifteen• Venus's would be too many fok him
to keep.,—(Laughter.) •
The SOLWITOR-OEN TAAL. , then, 12, or $, or 10.
What right would the modeiist have to say to lir% employer, "
shell klbql ft or It) of your Venus's to myself
The ease was the Lime with rmrwwet to a printer, mu so engraver: .:
The V try.-Ctta.nup,t,i.oh asked, was their ally enstom stated e
,The• Rowans...GE NCR Al, Said, it warm. contended by•the
fendanta, that there was a spurious custom of that kind in the
trade : they said that the engravers were in the habit of retaining
a given number of impressions to themselves.
The Vltlt• CH A Ne51,7,0u.---Ilow many ?
The •SoI, re ITO a-G r. a A 1.. —From 6 to 12,

The Vice-0; naked how ninny had Mr. Heath kept?
The Sourerroe-G!eannt.' replied- ; Ina he might as well
have-kept.l6, as 1,5, oft ti ; the principle was the same, and he.
did not know hoW it 171/illfl be supported.' It 'was very well
boos the value of a work was ditnlniehed in proportion aa
the impressions were tunnel OM, and increased in proportion as
they were sere ; why, then, should the Millet be al liberty to
reduce the value of it, If he were paid for his'? rot in,
stance, the late T/r biibthorpe, professor of botany et Oxford, who
had travelled 'much in Greece, imblishol a very veritable work,
entitled Flora Cretan, and to tender it of still greater value, he
directed a very limited number of copies to he struck off, just
enough to enable him to supply the libraries of Oxlbttl and Cam-
!. bridge Universitien, Lord Speneer, and a few 'others, with' one
eerie ; and he then, to prevent the possibility of other impresstions
being taken o 0 had the plate* destroyed. Now, it Ives to be sup-
posed that when the doctor iiitninteel his .engraver that he wan only
to strike off no or 40 copieS, in order to render it a rare work, the
Later would have a right to say that lie would keep 10 or 12 copies
to himself? A learned friend of his, Mr. &Aland, had had a scarce old
black letter honk reprinted, and in order to preserve its value, lie
had restricted the number of copies to 50; but whit would he have
said if the printer told him--" You may have 50 copies it you
please, but 1 will have 12 for mYself." He only mentioned these
cues as Illustrations of the absurdity of the alleged custom
amongst engravers of keeping a number of proof impreasions tai
their own use. Now, the proof impressions were limited, he mu-
dergtood, to U) or 40 (he bed supposed 100, but he fouled he
WAR mititaken), and these were the most valuable class of impres-
sions, because cacti sueceeding set Were growing fainter; if, 'there-
foie, the engraver were to keep back 10 or 12 front this set, he.
would materially diminish the value of the work. Perhaps if an
eminent artist were to say that he bad been iu the habit of keep,
ing back one impriyhhion of each of hist.plates, for the piper of
forming a collection of specimen* of his own Works, it might seem
an ill-natured thing to refuse him permission to do so although
evert he (the Solicitor-General) denied that he had any'right
tcrit. Nit the custom here elainied was a. 4 unreasonable 4114 it was
strm'. wan aware-of no branch of art in which smith a ors-
two elit,4l; and, dumbly submitting that on these , grounds it
was vicious and bad,' he trusted that the Court would grant the
injuktion.

The Vtcx-Citl, Nezi.Lnit here asked Mr. Heald if this question
""I't not nef`miPtif ily he settled at la*? It WitH not very material
tri the public \Olt flat such a custom.existed o,r mat; beramse if it
did, the l'l,g!,,,WlTof Connie 11111111A:1i ;t from his em-
ployer, int ,moideration of the number of 1111pit,i011,1 he was 'to
retail(' whieb formed part of the price of Lis labour; while: the
employer, On the other hand, might, by evecial contract, 'ex-
clude the engraver from this benefit of the custom. He (the
Vice-Clianceller) did not see how he could refuse the injunction ;
but it would be granted only tin condition that the plaintiff pro,
eceded to try the cpeStion at law.
Mt. MALI) ekiireOell x wish that the Com t would compel the
plaintiff to proceed to try it in ate short a time es possible.
The Vicr..Citance.a.nit observed, that •he did not con4hhie
the emtoror if it existed, an fibsitrd one. Ile iuquircd irthe
Learned ("minuet had any affidavit:in support it? _
MiAistALD mid, he had 'lit or 14 affidavits of engravers
ing its existence.--

VICE,CII4IiCELLOR asked Itow many impressions they
stated it to la* the custom to retail*?
Mr. lit ALI, replied, from six to twelve.
The Vlca Crtaxert;ron asked if Air. Heald, as a lawyer mild
say that that was a kgat custom ? A custom must, to h: valid,every body knew, he certain and definite. He thought, however,
that the question ought to be settled. After scene observations* from tie bar, aa to the time and place of trying the action, his
Honour 'ultimately directed that the trn,l ',lima(' talcs place in the
Court of Common Pleas, in London, in the sittings, after next
Alichaelnuts tem.

sionevrautiy o, JIMITLAND A. 14111 °Timm
CrAIRT COlilltlON PLEAS/ uu4nttar.4, JuLy 4,
This was an aothm for work and labour done.
Mr. Sergeant Vattattan stated the cum. The plairdiff
a surveyor Etn4l architect, and bad been enaPhlYed bythe defendants,
who twerp the trustee', to a romPat+Y formed for the purpose of
building a bridge amass the Severn, near Tewkeshney,-tg roman
estimate of what the expenee wo"l't ht The plaintiff in* an
estithatti with whirl the, defendants werp-eatielied, „,,,d he, -pre.„
needed to build the,hrillie,.:- Sortie time after he.-had tionirieueed
this work, the defestda,oo4onaiseed luau, .and tlte present iition

was brought to recover compensation for that part of the Work
Which he had completed.
Many witnesses were called, who spoke in the highest terms of-
the ability, and ingenuity which the plaintiff had shown in the
plans and elevations he had drawn, as also the manner in which
lie bad commenced tic work; but they admitted that the cost had
greatly exceeded the estimate. •
Mr: gergeant 'PADDY addressed the jury for the defendants,
and called many witnesses, who proved that the plaintiff had lids-
calculated_ the expense of ti road intended to lead to the bridge, as
•
muchas 5,000/.1 tlicy also proved that the plaintiff held shiuts
to the amount of 5001. in the company.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 7bo/.
holding him liable to pay the SOO/. which he held in s(►ares.•

SHERIFF'S COURT, JULY 1.

ItENLEY V. ST. KATHARINE." DOCK. COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant VAmittaii opened the cage upon the part of the
claimanti; fi.oM which it appeared that they were' pos4aird of
very considerable leasehold property, held under the Chapter of
St. Katharine's, the fee-simple of which had already been' pur-
chased by fire 'St. Katharine Dock Company, and which pro-
perty Was required for- the purposes of the Act. ' The amount of
the demand for the leasehold interest was 22,094/. which included
a claim of about 4,000/. fur the supposed value of an alleged pre-
scriptive right of reneWal at the expiration of every 12 years..
With respect to the value of time naked leasehold interest, the dif-
ference lictween the claim and the estimate by the Dock Conips.ny,
was not very great, the demand being 19,6381. while the esti-
mated: value by the Dock Company was 17,180/. The Dock
Company.liad, three months ago, proposed to the claimants to
refer their Claim to arbitration, which had been declined; and
the Jury were then called upon to assess the amount of compen-
sation' of right due to Messrs. llirst and Company under the pro-
visions of the Act.

The point at issue, it appeared, was one of magnitude to the
Doek Company, as it involved a question as to whether the lat-
ter could legally he called upon to pay, in addition to the .value
oldie leasehold interest, any sums of money in the shape of corn.:
pensatiOn for an alleged prescriptive right of renewal; the Dock
Company contending, that inasmuch as the leases contained no
'i!hvenaut to renew, the measure of value was to be determined
!),y the legal expiration of the terms in each of the leases respec-
tively. The estimate of the value of the leasehold interest pro-
ceeded upon the 5 per cent. table, the principle of which, con-
sidering that the sale was a compulsory one, was assented to by
the Dock Company but some items, amongst which 1,283/. for
a reversionary interest, and 629/. for the premium which it was
alleged the lease of the Punch-howl public-house, part of the pro-
perty in question; was worth, was objected to by Mr. Adam, the
leading Counsel for the Dock Company, who denied the :right
of the claimants to any compensation on account of the sup-
posed right of renewal, and rested his case upon the evidence of
the claimants.

The IlxrnEa SUP:RIFF summed up the case ,to the Jury, and
expressed a de6ded opinion that the claimants had no legal right
whatever to compensation on account of the alleged custom of re-
newal.. •

The Jury withdrew, and, after a short consultation, gave a ver-
diet for 17,900/., deducting therefore from the claims the 4,0001.
the amount of the dcinand made for renewal, expences, kc.,
1,214:31, for,reVersionary interest, and 629/. for the premiums
upon the lease of the pnblicAotiae,'being in the whole 6,993/. less
than thesum eltimed, and negativing the right Of renewal.
Five other cases' stood for trial, the adjustment of four of which
had been resisted . by the Dock CoMpany upon the same grounds,
with respect ' to' the right of renewal; and the question having
been determined by the decision of the jury in the previous.case,
the parties agreed to take verdicts for the amount, if the Dock
Company's estimates, made in each of the cases, had been made
upon the five per cent. tables. In the other case a demand was
made by the proprietor of a publihouse in Little Thames-
street, SL Katharine's, for leasehold interest and good-will,
amounting to 2,628/. Thu claimant, after examining two wit-
nesses, accepted an offer of the Dpek Company of 1,3601.