The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-28 00:00:00

eon) pronounced against the d►vorce, and substantially in favour
of the Marquis of Weatineath's prayer, that his Lady should be
compelled to return to his wiety. From this decision the Mar-
chioness now appealed, and the case conies on for the judgment
of Sir John Nichol!.
Dr. JICNNIA, who appeared for the appellant, opened the
pleadings, the reading of which occupied the Court until its ad-
journment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER--(ints DAT.)
(Before Baron GRAHAM, Baron oAnnow, and Baron HULLocK.)
TRY WINO V. smaLre.
This was an arrest ofjudgment, a rule having been obtained
to *haw cause why the verdict should not be set aside. Against
that rule Mr. MTORNET GauaßAr, attended to StolVW CAM this
morning. He stated that the defendant had received, be..
tween the Ist of June, ISU, and the 19th of FebruarY, 1925,
several parcels of raw silk by the Radii"; in the port of London,
without paying the duties ordered by the statute. The Learns&
Counsel remarked that he understood the ground on which the;
rule had been obtained was, that the defendant had not actually
imported them by his own person but had received them from
others. It was the same thing in fact, whether the man brought
the goods into this country himself, or received them circuitously
from a link of twenty persons, he was equally an importer in both
cases.

Mr. Baron Clas.nast differed front this view, and was joined
by Mr. Baron GARROW in the opinion, that there Were a great:
many exceptions to that view of the Act; one occurred a short:
time since, when an Ambassador had goods secreted among hie
luggage by other persons.

The ArranNiT-Gertegar. resumed. Ile contended, if he
proved that a man employed another person to bring goods, And
received them himself in this country, the latter must be an lin-
porter. In criminal law it was well known, that whether a man
knocked out another's brains with a hammer, or employed a thivd
person to do it, he was equally a murderer with the actual per-
petrator of the crime, and was always included in the indictment.
Mr. CLARET/ cornet*, that the words of the statute, " to,
import, or cause to be imported," were synonymous, or the fact
of causing to be imported would be nti offence. If the latter was
the case, it was high time that those Words were rejected.
Mr. Baron II u LLOCK enquired whether ifan indictment was made
out that a man " beat, or caused to be beaten, another man," it
would in law invariably implicate the man who caused the other
to he beaten.

Mr. CLanne replied, not as a man might cause another to be
beaten without being present.
Baron Htm.r.ocw, observed, so Might a man cause to be imported
without being present.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, ably contended that the intention
of the statute was to inflict the penalty of 100/. on but one per.
son, and that person the manual importer. That the information
was substantially bad, and the officers of the Crown, who had all
the principal learning, ought not to receive more of the bar
indulgence in their proceedings than other pleaders.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and
The COURT declared that they should take time to consider
their judgment.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COI/RT.-4n15 DAY.)
Before Commissioners HAnats and Bowxx.
Thomas Atherton was brought up to be heard on his petition.
It appeared by his schedule that he was last a resident of Man-
chester, where most of his creditors are now living. He bad.
however, come to Landon, and was there arrested for a debt of
20/., due to a Mr. linape, who was likewise a resident of Man-
chester. Mr. Commissioner Bowen cross-examined him as to
his motive in coming up to London to be arrested, but could get
n►► satisfactory answer. At length the insolvent, after standing a
very severe fire, confessed that it was concerted that he was to be
arrested in London by himself and his creditor, at the office of a
Mr. Knapp, in order that he might be at a greater distance from
his creditors.

The lion. Coromisrioner expressed his satisfaction at the man's
candour, but. of couree dismissed his petition. The insolvent's
attorney .stated to the Court.that he (insolvent) had told him that
he came to London in order to take the benefit of the Act in a
shorter time than by waiting for the circuit at Manchester. The
Commissioners, however, suspected that it was not a bowl fide
debt with Mr. Snape, and intimated that by getting an affidavit of
what took place at Mr. Ic.napp's ►f"ice, the petition might be re-
examined on Monday next.

James Henry Harknife was struck out of the list, he not being
in Court to be heard on his petition.
Henry Mayo Was declared to be discharged from the Marshal-
sea, his name was in consequence erased froM the cause paper.
Several other insolvents were declared entitled to their discharge.