The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-09 00:00:00

NitttE Mtn:lona.

BOW-STREET.---Visterday Mr. Robert Taylor, o,
Newman-street, summoned the steward of the benefit so-
ciety called the United Britons to show cause why they ex-
pelled him from that society.
The MAutsTaa're, after remarking benefit clubs vt,-er.
in general too much in the habit of expelling members, or
dered the complainant to be at once restored to the society
and cautioned the steward how the managers were guilt:,
of a similar proceeding.
We stated in our report of Tuesday's proceedings at thi-
Office, that Johnson, the informer, had summoned a re.
spectable man, named Jackson, who keeps the Globe eat-
ing-house, in Bow-stseet, far selling a pint of, porter upon
his premises without a publican's licence, and that he win
fined in the mitigated penalty of 10/., he having given no-
tice of appeal against the decision. Yesterday Johnson
again presented hiniself before the bench, with a fresh batch
of informations, and amongst the number was another
against Jackson for a similar offence.
Mr. Woods, the dexle; expressed his surprise, and said
on handing the information -against. Jackson to Sir R.
Birnie, that it was rather hard upon the defendant to ap
pear twice in the same week on a similar charge, particu-
larly as he had given notice of appeal to the sessions, where
he was convinced that right to serve his customers with
porter from the public.house would be acknowledged.
Sir R. ButnrE.borc testimony to the highly respectable
and orderly manner in which Jackson's house was conduct-.
ed, and refused to signa second information against him,:ob-
serving that the law was never intended to apply to the
proprietors of respectable eating-houses, merely for serving
their customers with beer.

Sir BIRNIE mentioned, that "A Friend to the Dis•
tressed" had forwarded him 21: towards the funds of the
office.charity-box. He mentioned also that a Noble Lord
forwarded 10/..for-thi same purpose, but with r. strict in-
junetion that hii name abould not be made•public.
M ARYL EBON&OFFICE.---John Gidney,who lately
carried on the trade of a coatlunaker, and Samuel Charles
Durant, falsely said to be a gentleman of fortune at La-
yenham, yesterday , were fully committed under the
charge of fraud, with liberty to give bail, themselves each
in 400/., and sureties for each in ball that amount, with
48 hours' notice.

' Henry Thorp, a young man who is servant to a pastry-
cook, at No. 75, in Welbeck-street, was' charged with
firing a pistol loaded with ball, at Cornelius Leary, a la-
bourer, who lives in Gee'r-court.
Mr. Hosxitis reproved Thorp for his folly, • which had
proved all but fatal, and ordered that he should be detained.
UNION-HALL.—Yesterday a man was brought before
the Sitting Magistrate, charged with having been concerned
in breaking into and robbing the house of Mr. Dunfield,
landlord of the Angel, in Webber-street, Lambeth.—He
was fully committed.
In the course of the day, Johnson, the informer, at.
tended again at the office, for the purpose of applying
for informations, and summonses under the 35th of
Geo. 111., cap. 113, against the following individuals, for
selling wine and other excisable liquors, without a license,
namely Mr. Ford, proprietor ef the Surrey'll.ottmda wine-
rooms, Blackfriars-road; •Mr. King, proprietpr of a coffee-
shop in. the, pariah of St. George,; and Mr. Clark, vintner,
of the Borough...road.
The Magistrate (Mr. Sw.Laxx) received the information,
against the defendants, and Thursday next was appointed
for hearing them.
Johnson also obtained six fresh•summonses against the
licensed victuallers whom he summoned on Wednesday last,
but who were discharged in consequence of his not appear-
ing against them. Wednesday next was then appointed
the day for hearing the summonses against the licensed
victuallers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEL S.

Their Lordehipi 'sat to-day,, for the first time in
the:presentSession, to hear appeals, and the first
case on the paper was that of

GoLD!)N V. ANDESSON.

This was an appeal from a. judgment of the Court
of Session, concerning a question of considerable in-
terest in the Scotch Law of Landlordaud Tenant. Col.
Gordon, who is proprietor of the estate of Stains, in
Aberdeenshire, had issued certain...regulations to his
tenantry, one of which was, that " the whole fodder
should be used upon the ground, and none sold or
carried away at any time,hay only excepted; and all the
dung to be laid upon the farm the last year of the lease."
Anderson was a tenant of Colonel Gordon,. under a
lease which terminated at Whit-Sunday, 1822, as,
e %Le ground, and Martinmas, 1822, as
to the remainder. On the e,-,iry . this
lease, a difference arose between the parties,
the tenant contending, that by common law and-usage,
he was entitled to carry off the straw of the way-
going, or last year's crop; and to dispose of it on his,
own account;-whilt the 'landlord maintained that, by
'the remis of the general regulations of the. estate, he
was prohibited from carrying.off any straw or fodder,
and was bound to consume the whole on the farm..
This &Pule became the-.subject oflegal proceedings,
and the 'Court -of 'Session on the.•loth of March,
1825, decided that the regulations above referred to
could `i not be. held AS' applying to the crop of the
last year of the lease, and that the rights of the
parties respecting the same must-be regulated by the
common law and usage of the country." - Against
this judgment cross appeals were entered, on the
one side by Colonel Gordon, who complained that
though the regulations 'were considerW obligatory on
the tenant, they had been found inapplieable to the
present question ;—and On the Other side by Ander-
son, who:denied that the' regulations formed a con-'
dition his. lease, or that he was in any respect
bound or affected by them. .It was contended for
Anderson, that. by giving effect to the general
regulations he should be deprived of a whole year's
crop ; and that it never could be supposed that he
had entered into any such The Coun-
sel for Colonel Gordon, maintained, that this was
an inaccurate statement of the argument for that it
was not sought to deprive the
.tenant of the crop,
bnt simply to compel him to leave and to .consume
it on the premises. The tenant had not subscribed
the regulations, but he had signed another paper
which adopted and referred to them. So that there
was here a strong analogy to the recent case
of the Duke of Roxburgh against Roberton, in.
which the Hattie of Lords decided against the te-
nant.

The Lord CHANCELLOR said, it did not appear to
him that there was much difficulty in the present
question, and he would g►ve judgment on Wednes-
day next. The necessity of an alteration of the de-
cision' of the Court of Session was so plainly signified,
that Colonel Gordon's counsel moved for the costs ;
but his Lordship thought it would be a serious thing
to give costs in a case like this, where thirteen
Judges of the Court below had been unanimous in
the judgment appealed from, and only a single
Judge (Lord Cringletie) opposed to it.
This case, when disposed of, will be the first deci-
sion of Lord Lyndhurst on a Scotch Appeal. The
case of Strechan v. Paton was thereafter opened by
the Solicitor-General.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 7.:
THOMPSON V. BARCLAY, 11P:RRIN6, AND RICH k

AND J. A. FOWLES AND CO.
The Court was occupied during the whole day in '
hearing the argumente of Counsel on the demurrer
in this case.
The bill filed by the plaintiff, Alderman Thompson,
stated that in August, 1825, the defendants, Messrs.
Barclay and Co., the bankers, announced that they
. possessed. certificates of obligation from the Govern-
ment of the Federal Republic of South America or
Guatemala, and that they were ready to receive
ders for the purchase of those certificates, of obliga-
tion, to the amount of 1,428,5711. 81k ‘'• Messrs.
Powles and 'Co. (who were joined iwthisiait with
Messrs, Barclay', es defendants) sent in tenders for
the purchase of the Certificates, which they were
to pay for in vationsinetalments;rthe first, of which they'
were to be paid on the 22d 'Of Septem4r, 182 k, the
last on the 22d Of' March, 1826. The inte-
rest on the certificates onfsgtal t
obligation
makeliegnatts pioilre‘vvioasts
.itloy
mcoatdne-
me!ice on the • first day :of Augus
good any o
1825. In case
instalments,
of
the Mesais.P°vall Powles
thfeailiin
Were to be forfeited. The price it was stated in the
course of the proceedings, which Messrs. Powles
were to pay for the certificates, was 68 pet-cent.—
It was publicly announced that their tender had.
been' aceepted ; and, in the notifications 'to the
public, it was represented. that 'the two 'first firms
ere' dietinct anti separate parties to 'the transac-

tian, Messrs. Barclay and Co. being agents only to
the Guatemala Government, Messrs. Powles the
contractors for the loan. -The partners of the latter
firm were. the intimate friends of the plaintiff, and
they represented to him that they had contracted to
take the Guatemala loan,t)lat they expected it would
bear a premium, andther lierefore strongly advised
him to purchase a portion 61 it. 'By these repre-
sentations the plaintiff was induced to purchase cer-
tificates of bonds of obligations to the amount. of
10;000/., at 73 per cent. The plaintiff now 'set
forth that the defendants had committed a fraud, in
representing the contract by Powles and Co. as bona
fide, when; in fact, Barclay and. Co. were at one.
buyers and sellers. The plaintiff having been in.;
duced by this fraud to advance his money, prayed
the Court to give him relief, by forcing the defend-
ants to return it with interest thereon, The de-
fendants put in separate!demurrers, to the effect that
the plaintiff had not in his bill wade out such a case
as entitled him to relief from a'Court of Equity, or
called' upon them to give further ansWers to the
charges which it contained.
Mr. BICkERSTETII and 'Mr. PEMBERTON at great
length argited in support of the plaintiff's bill.
Mr. PEPYS,-in support of the demurrer, expressed
his surprise at the latitude of statement with which_
the plaintiff's case had been supported, and he felt
himself bound to declare, in the presence of thoSe
who had heard it, that it was false, and that the bill
was slanderous. _ _