The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-05 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.) iMPE 1 q AT. PARLIAMENT.
I

ZOO
;,; Ii
, .011
-fro?'
Otier

(FROM LLOYD'S.)
D;Att, JULY 4.—Wind S.W.—Passed the Isabella, for
-7uerara ;
,and Robarts, Corbyn, for Bengal., •
kPoitTsmouTn JULY 4.—Wind S. W.—Arrived his Ma-
s..., . , ,
711)up Pearl, from Deptford.
, , JULY 3.—Wind S.S.W.—Arrived the
Argo,Miiiire, front Sierra Leone.
Yui;r 4,,Arrived the Rockers, Soper,
r°l3loietuida ; ;Phoebe Ann, Cooper, from 4latanies.
t, JULY 4.—Arrived the Tphigeuia, Chisuev,
rain DErnefari.
jit MKT, JULY I.—Arrived the Juno, Le .Bas, from
aagen. - " •
,-•iivtt, JULY S.—Arrived the Vestal, Lowe, from St.'
'etersburgh.;. Cawton, Lyall, from Stockholm.
tfp.xxA., 23.—The ship George Canning,
Chtrire,.frqm peng4 was lost at the Mauritius, in a.hur-:
ep on the 6th March, the captain, chief officer, pas Pe-
n ancl pert .of the crew drowned ; vessel and cargo
y Inst. She was riding quarantine below the:Bell
'rAW INTE

n
rhea'
,t
Jr e

wbW
ids
1)
)in
t

,141 tor

iLLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
IN THE MATTER OF BAXTERi A BANKRUPT.
Tke bankrupt carried on , the business of a draper
nt -Ipsivich. Under, the bankruptcy his brother was
otrtmitted on the 29th of March by the Commis-
sioners, for not satisfactorily answering the questions
Put to him. On the 9th of May he was again
brought before the Commissioners, ,and again corn-.
nutted. • SUbsequently he applied to be brought be-
fore the Commissioners a third time: on this occa-
s% he was told by the solicitor under the oommis-
rnission, that if he would pay the expences of such
besting (amounting to about 71.) his request should
granted. lle tendered the 71., but the Commis-
sioners refused to hold the meeting, unless he also
41'n SecuritY for the payrient of all contingent ex-
Pence% which he would not do ;. and
Mr. BARBER applied to-day on hii behalf for, the
order of the Court, calling. upon the Commissioners
to held a meeting, as desired by the petitioner.
Mr. RosE, on the part of the assignees, opposed
the petitioner.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, considered that as what-
ever expenses .might be incurred, would, be occa-
lioned by the conduct of the petitioner, he did not
fseel himself justified in ordering the Commissioners
'bringing him up again without defraying the
It 'bringing
M the same time he recommended the
‘-;Oni
to
to bring the petitioner before them
'port, 44
:paying the 71., and without calling upon
orn omeet the contingent expenses of the meeting.
BEVERIDGE v. HAY.
Mr. ANDURTON applied. in this ex-parte case, for a
Special injunction. The plaintiff was the defend-
"es uncle. He had furnished him with sums to
Pay the fees attending hiS walking the hospital, and
qutilifying hisnself as a surgeon. "An agreement was
entered into between the parties, that they should
eArry on a
tivd partnership business in Newgate-street for
of,e_e Years,in which there was a ClauSe prohibiting the
dent from carrying on business in any other place
shi five Miles of Newgate-street. The partner-
P had expired, and the defendant had commenced
practice within a few doors of his uncle's. He had,
the the' .since the dissolution of ,the partnership, taken
iaeh (choledaiheis nt
sums'
the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and sche-
uncle for a debt of 2,9004 principally
the
osed of sum that he had received on account
10- Theis
late Partnership and applied to:his own use.
0... ,n prayer of the bill was to restrain him from carry.
iliil
. g Orthusiness in Newgate-street and from collecting
See to more of the partnership debts. The same mo-
ae on Was made to his Honour, the Vice-Chancellor,
who refused the prayer of it, on the ground that. he
filo:the the prohibiting clause in the agreement
ex-
and •
with the term of the partnership.
The LORD CHANCELLOR felt rather inclined to
the
grant
theinjunetion; but after the judgment of the
teak
Vice-Chaneellor, he could not do it until after no-
key rice of the motion had been given. He therefore
d. is directed notice to be given, and the motion to be
141%ight in again befOre the breaking. up of the
t sittings,
vhO COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Say -HE iINQ y. sin EDWARD MOSTTN HOWARD, AND cerilitgf
• This wan an indictment for perjury and subornation of
Pi" Perjury, arising out' of the suit instituted by- Sir Jacob
the. 48 tley, in the Consistory Court, for. a divorce from tadY 41t)• rses' °Y, on the ground of a criminal intercourse with
say' r„-llPtain Garth, The case was fixed specially for this
--(1140 and in expectation of its coming on the' Court
was g'
crowded.
ded
had itUTPuti Lord Tenteiden's' taking his seat,
nts st
.1% PLAT; one of the Counsel for the prosecution,
, ate
that he understood it was the intention of the de-
Lice, 'eodants to withdraw the record. It had been moved
,by
ach
c"tiorari into this Court, and the defendants had right
t° withdraw it if they thought fit.
set f Altisrs. Gonnvv and CAMPBELL, who were engaged
Ira „__°!' the defendants, denied that there was any intention of
ievc hdrawing the record,
,
bad SCARLETT, who leads for the prosecution, said he
seen assured last night by a gentleman whose word he
of ,_ °ld not have doubted, that the defendants had resolved
i° withdraw the record. Under this impression lie had
hr brought down his papers, and was not prepared.
o 7r. GURNr.y and Mr. CANIPBELL again denied that any
a Such intention existed on the part of the defendants, and
"ggeSted that the ease should be fixed for Tuesday next.
hey Lord TENTRRDEN said, that after what Sir James Scar-
hat lett said, he could not press the cause on to-day, but he
or nuld not fix any day for it; all he could say was, that it
gait "eat remain in the paper.
ley The case therefore stands over sing die.
HORTICULTURAL BREAKFAST.
not - 'LARKIN V. ELLIOT AND ANOTHER.
tic:t. hie was an action brought by the celebrated confec-
-4e in New Bond-street, against two Members of the
" "Iteittee of Management of the Horticultural Society, to
1*" , -:ve e 4091. 15a., the balance alleged to be due to him
red rQf a contract made with the Horticultural Society, to
a collation for the breakfast given at the Horti-
cults a 1 Gardens, Chiswick, on the 23d June, 1827.
plank. CAMPBELL stated the plaintiff's case. The
be-4tiff was applied to, to know on what conditions
supply collation to about 2,000 persons, at a
APl4,,°lit breakfast, at a
the Horticultural Gardens, Chiswick.
t Jarrin stated he would be willing to supply the col-
-4,-441 at the rate of 15s. a-head, including ices, wines, and
fa,' TO this offer Mr. Jarrin subjoined a sketch of the
e: he intended to supply. Subsequently, Mr. Jarcin re.
1a...°-4. an intimation that the Committee conceived that a
it ,*}-Pensive entertainment would snit equally well, and
a -"'l
,„7,4a,finally arranged that Mr. Jarrin should, supply
so 'lion at 121. a-head, Some of the company arrived
ar 1y se twelve o'clock, but the company continued to
9 Le until six o'clock, and instead .of 2,000 person,
;„-a mi Were admitted on tickets. There was no complaint
',4, g
Y thin until six o'clock, and the parties who arrived
'4O late hour did not find an abundance of that sub.
Ist•-tikl fare which would have best suited their appetites.
La: n' out of every ten persons who attended went away ear
and
but some rho hail come at dinner hour complained,
fwep the strength of those complaints the defendants re-
a. to pay Mr. Jarrin the amount of big contract! and he
97-s- adder the necessity of bringing the present action.
, '."aral witnesses were examined on the part Of tine
Pprove the quantity and value of the articles,
r ni'lled by the plaintiff.
„,„ 'l•4 defence was, that the supply was wholly insufficient
The
for 2,000 persons.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant

ex tO

prsef
nen,
inn
and
klk a

'ls°
tew
me.
knd
but

: 4'rlf BY DROWNING.----On Thursday
,-"f"Aglast; ELISIIA WHITE, a youth about fourteen years
'r "gs, servant to Mr. MOZLEY, of Blackwell, near But-
.if7),Paet with his death by bathing in the mill-pool, near
' e "Met place.. It appears that be. and a few of his cop-
'•''S i 114/41,it abbot the same age; 'ivent to bathe, when he:ii--
li , "ninth, gOt ciut of his, epth, and not being a switnnier„,
„4,' , drpwned.—Stockpert Advertiser.
P r, ...
,1
lan , kflne evening last week, a- black dog named
-;•-• ' 144 nested himself in the pit of the Beverley Theatre,
$„... 1.,
t
Lmq*.°. 4 011tielman who saw him, going into that park of
iei : h"liei aceosted him in the usual familiar way, "Jock,
If 14 r Alokp. but before he had time to pat the dog's head,
L
Ikvrai media by a Scotabman, whe loudly demanded ea-
7, liZdft for the public insult he had received. The gee-
Szq, . quite astounded with the rattling of the Scotch-
On 14,k1 t("ltte, begged to know what he meant. Tb 4. Scotch-
Was ~, vehemently said, What Ad you mean, Sir, by calling
0,20 ck., in this public place? The gentleman pointed to
71, 0044 g; saying, ".They.call him Jock." . The Scotchinan
aye! Q,ist down amidst peals of lautliter.--Doneastef
I, 'NI.

"7",-

HOUSE OP U.071D Fainar, JULY 4.

- - .
The Marquis of LA iN &DOWN E presented a pe-
tition-froM the county 'of Roxburgh, agai;ist the
importation of Foreign:Wool.
The Packet. Vessels' Licensing Bill, .and the
Ale-houses Licensink Bill, were read 'a third time
and posited.
The Elections Poll§ Bill was read a second time.
The'House went into: a ComMittee- on the frisk
and Scotch Small Notes Bill.

The Barra CARNARVON said that the Bill
would produce. groat inconvenience, unless drafts
Under. 51.. were exempted from its operation. As.
the clause at present stood, it applied. not only to
bank notes, but to drafty -on bankers, so that a
Scotch gentleman sending up to London a draft to
his tradesman, would render him Self liable to a pe-
nalty, and the tradesman attempting to negoeiate it
could be also punished; the Bill, therefore, as lathe
case of all law, intemled to restrain actions not
stamped with Moral gnilt,:,Would merely prove a
trap, to the im!Rcent and unwary.
Nke of WELLINGTON assured .the
No`ble"Earl that his apprehensions were groundless,
as the words of this Act were precisely the same as
those in the 48th of George 111., which applied to,
drafts; drawn in England.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the last
clause in the Bill would sufficienily protect any
,gen-
'tlesnan from': the consequences of inadvertence, as
under that clause a Power was given.Of remitting the
penalty. .
The Earl of MALIVESBURY objected to the
Bill in itk present shape, and thought that some
alteration ought to be introduced to protect a Scotch
gentleman from the penalty which would attach, to
him for drawing a draft for any sum less than 5/.
.on
his, banker in London.

After some further observations, the Bill
.was
agreed to without the amendments and the report
received.
The House next went into a Committee on the
Irish Promissory Note Bill, and the amendment prof
posed by the Duke of Wellington was, that age-zits
should not be liable to be called upon to pays coinage
for the notes issued, unless residing at places where
either the Banks, or their Branch Banks, were esta-
blished that had issued them.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE and the Earl of
ROSSLYN expressed their concurrence in the amend-
ment, though the latter Noble Lord objected to the
principle of the Bill.

- The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for the
production of the Report of the Grand Jury of Kil-
kenny to the local Government of Ireland.

Tile Duke of WELLINGTON had no objection
to the motion, but he understood the Report had not
been received by the Local Government.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE understood that
the Report had been delii,ered into the Irish office
by the County Member.—The motion was then
agrped to.—Adjourned till Monday.