The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-10 00:00:00

FOR COLDS, COUGHS, ASTHMAS. &c.

BUTLER'S PECTORAL ELIXIR.--Ex-
perience during a very long period, liaS illeout est j1)1 y
proved the Sispetior efficacy of this Ntedicine, itr all cases of
Colds, Coughs, and Aithmatic Affections. By promot jog gen-
tle expectoration, it veryshortly relieves the l'Attriit of a slight
or recent Cold, and a few doses are gen..rAlly sufficient to
remore those which neglect has rendered more confirmed and
obstinate, and which are accompanied with Cough, Spitting
of Blood, and other serious symptoms. lin peculiar balsamic
powers tend to heal soreness, and allay the irritation of the
lungs, in canes of Cough; and in Asthmatic Affections it as-
sists and given freedom to the Breath.

N":,1 in Bottles, nt Is, 1 tl and 24. 9d. by Butlers, Che-
mist, 4, ( heapside, coriu•r of St. Paul's; and 54, Sackville.
street, Dublin ; Savory and Co. Mt, New Bonit..street ; and
220, Itegent-street; and by the principal Nledicisie Venders
throughout the United Kingdom.
Of whom may be bad,
BUTLER'S BALSAMIC LOZENGES, nerd in recent
Coughc, Hoarseness, &c. and for rendering the Voice Clear
and Flexible, and protecting its Organs from the effects of
exertion. In Boxes, Is. lid.
N. B. 1k careful to for Butler's Pectoral Elixir.

LAW INALLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 9.
AIR BALGOON4.
itEELEX v. GRAHAM AVID WERU.

Mr. ABRAHAMS opened the pleadings, and Mr. EVAN'S
sated the plaintiff's case to the Jury in so low a tone of voice
as to be nearly inaudible in the Students' box; we understood
him, however, to say, that the plaintiff was a tailor, and that the
first defendant was the celebrated Mr. Graham, and the other
defendant was a scientific gentleman connected with him in his
pursuits. Some time in the last year a balloon ascent was,con-
templated by these gentlemen ; but the balloon needed consi-
derable repairs, and the plaintiff was engaged, under the im-
mediate superintendenceof the defendants, to do-such repairs,
and it was for a remuneration for his time and trouble, upon
that occasion, that he brought the present action ; he had made
a very moderate demand for his trouble, but the defendatits had
refused to pay it, and he (Mr. Evans) understood that the wit-
nesses that would be called before the Jury would say, that a
fur larger sum than what the plaintiff demanded would be a
very moderate remuneration for his trouble. A witness was
called, but, before his examination was proceeded in, the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested a reference, which was
agreed to, and a nominal verdict was consequently found for
the plaintiff.

RULES OF THE KING'S HUNCH PRISON.
WOODROW v. Joxr.s.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the Mar-
shal of the Alarshalsca, to recover a sum of 971., for which it
was alleged that he had rendered himself liable by permitting
the escape of a prisoner, who had been committed in execution
to his custody.
Mr. Coate t opened the pleadings, and Mr. MARRYAT
stated the case to the Jury. From his evidence it appeared,
that Mr. bewellin Watkin Williams, the lesee•of the Surrey
Theatre, was committed to the custody of the illarshal, at the
suit of' the present plaintiff, in the month of .lime, 1824, on a
judgment nominally for 5041., but in point of fact for only 97/.,
entered up against him in Trinity Term of that year. By
finding the necessary sureties he obtained the rules of the King's
Bench, and it, was owing to an alleged escape out of them
that the present action was instituted against the Marshal.—
Ata dinner given at the Grapes public-house, in Great Suffolk.
street, Southwark, on the 12th of August, 1824, in honour of
his Majesty's birth-day, Mr. acted as deputy chair-
man, from four oclock in the afternoon till nine o'clock in the
evening. Now, by an order of the Court of King's Bench,
made in 1795, respecting the limits of the rules of the King's
Beach prison, it was ordered that " all taverns, victualling-
houses, alehouses, wine-vaults, houses or places licensed to
sell gin or other spirituous liquors, and all places licensed for
public entertainment, should be excluded out and deemed no
part of the district comprised within the rules. It was, con-
tended that the Grapes public-house, though not far fruits the
gates Of the prison, was excluded from the rules by that order,
and that as a bill was filed against the Marshal, and a copy of
it delivered to him by the plaintiff '8 attorney, during Mr. Airil-
Eames eresence in that house, and during his absence from the
Marshal's custody, the necessary measures had been taken to
fix the Marshal with the debt due from Mr. Williams. As it
was understood that the Maishal's defence in this action would
be, that the defendant had never been in the Grapes public.
house, but in a room separated from it by a yard,
,the Learned
Counsel called two excise-officers, to prove that the room in
question was entered in the landlord's licence, for 1824, as part
of the Grapes, and. that the stock of wine and spirits found in
it were surveyed as part of his stock.
Mr. SCAR LETT, on behalf of the defendant, contended,
that there had been no escape, inasmuch as the room where
the dinner took place was not, part or parcel of the Grapes
public-house, but completely detached and separated from it.
Its was one of those rooms which were denominated rulers'.
rooms, and which were allowed to exist with the know-
ledge of the Judges for the accommodation of indiiiduals
who had ',obtained the rules. Though the extreme eall•
tiOU, of tlfe landlord of the Grapes had led him to have
his room registered its part of his premiees in order to
prevent the excise officers from supposing that he was de.
mous of infringing the excise laws, he had, in poineof fact,
let it off by a specific agree.
nothing to do with it, having
ment in writing, to another indlvidual, who did not sell any
species of wine or spirituous liquor, but sent out for his guests,
whet paid him a small ren*uneratinn fur his trouble. As a
prciof that the presence of a ruler in this room lied never been
considered au escape. the learned Counsel called witnesses
who proved that the Coormerh" Inquests held on all persons
dying in custody of the Marshal were always held in it, and
that the jurors who attended such inquests, were invariably
selected by the Marshal from the prisoners committed to his
atahvi:rsreootomtbine prisoners were ac-
order to converse
c charge, s toi tat nt
do
thatsen
with the on the business of their respective 'clients: There
was one rooneof a description similar to this in the prison, and
dthfeor at
them to
three others without the prison. Under these circumstances,
Mr. Searlett contended. that the plaintiff' wee not entitled to re-
cover in the present action.
After the witnesses on the part of the defence hail been ex.
apieetl, -
- The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE asked the Learned Counsel on
both sides whether it would not be better to put the facts into
a special case, and to take:the opinion of tb Court upon it, as
if was quite clear that the main question in the case was the
construction which ought to be put on the order 'male by the
'Court in 1795.
11r. MannVAT and Mr. Se ABLE TT both assented, seal a
verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 811., liable to the opinion
of the Court on a special case.