The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-23 00:00:00

ADVANCING CASES.-TINDAL v. SMITH.

Mr. UORNE was instructed to bring this case to his
Lordship's notice, for the purpose of getting it advanced.
It was an appeal. The decree made in the case was pro-
nounced in the year 1822, against the defendant, who was
very far advanced in age, directing her to account; the
plaintiff had been proceeding almost ever since in the
Master's office, fighting with • every difficulty that
could possibly be thrown in his way. The Master had
"now made his report, and, as a further impediment, the
defendant had appealed against it, and the plaintiff was
under the necessity of craving his Lordship's indulgence
' to have the appeal heard speedily, otherwise he would be
in danger of losing all hawk of the cause.
His LonnsulP desired to be furnished with the papers,
which he would read without delay.
Mr. HART said he had instructions to make applications
to have the hearing of half a dozen of cases advanced on
various grounds—very pressing grounds—which lie had
refused to comply with; .but, if other people were to
make such applications, and to be successful in thew too,
he did not know why he should.not try his hand.
• The Loith CHANCELLOR said he would be as glad to
do any thing he was asked to do, for Mr. Hart as for any
body, but he would not say yes to- any application of this
kind, be it made by who it might, until he himself had
read the papers, and found that such application ought to
be complied with.

pened shortly after. It was also alleged that deceased
lived on good terms with his family, but on very bad terms
with his wife, who manifestly wanted affection for him.—
It was stated, that after the death of the deceased, the
widow had. conducted - herself .indecently, saying to
a person who spoke to her on the subject of the testator's
property, "Do you think I would have lost any time with
an old man like him, without getting any thing by him."
In addition to these 'particulars it was stated that Mrs.
Collins had declared there was no will in existence five
days after the date of the will propounded.
The COURT considered all the articles admissible but
those relating to the declarations of the widow subsequent
to the death of the testator, which were too trifling to be
admitted as evidence. .

LORD DIASSY V. UASSY AND OTHERS.
The Hon. and Rev. Mr. Massy, of Ilchester, died in the
commencement of the present year, leaving his entire .pro
petty, amounting to about 7,000!. to his elderbrother Lord
Massy, to the exclusion of his other brothers and sisters.
The testament now propounded was informal as the testa-
tor's name was not signed to it. It was also admitted that
he laboured under some very singular delusions on religious
subjects;, but,, nevertheless, as the disposition of property
made in the paper propounded, was in strict accordance
with the declared intentions of the deceased, before and
after its execution, and as it was drawn up tinder his ex-
press direction, the Court held that it was a valid will, and
accordingly granted the administration to Lord Massy.-7
The Court then adjourned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tnis DAY-)
JUDGMENTS ON SMUGGLERS.
Wm. S,ww, -Wm. Harrington, and Win. Hone, who had
suffered judgment by default, on an iuformation filed by the late
Attorney-General against them, fur conspiring to bribe a man in
the Preventive Service, on the coast of Sussex, to allow them to
smuggle, goods, and who had been brought.up for judgment on
Thursday last (vide the Sun of that day), were this day brought
up again, and sentenced—Snow and Hone to be imprisoned for
18 mouths, and Harrington for 15 months, and give security for
good behaviour for three years.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. Scaatrre moved fora rule to show cause why criminal
information should not be filed against John Wilinhurst, Mayor of
Warwick, iir Charles Greville, K.C.B„ M.P., and 8 other Alder-
men of that Borough. By the Charter of that. Borough, the Mayor
and 12 Aldermen are bound to proceed to the election of a Mayor on
the 29th of September. It appeared that some years ago, one man
had continued for seven years in that office, and was called the
seven years' Mayor. The present Mayor was elected in 1824,
and has continued since in that office. Two of the Aldermen,
Will. Collins and Richard Morns, protested all along against such
proceedings, but the subject of their complaint on this occasion was
what took place on the 29th of Sept. last. These two gave due
I notice to the other Aldermen, to attend on that day, for the pur-
pose' of electing a Mayor, notwithstanding which, not one of
them attended, though they were all in town and attended
the Mayor's dinner in the afternoon ; the consequence of which
was, that the election could not take place, and the late Mayor
still continued to hold the office, as he was obliged to do, until a
new one be elected ; he (Mr. Scarlett) was aware that they could
he compelled to elect a new Mayor by a mandamus ; but his ob-
ject in the present application was to bring the parties before the
Court, and to show that they refrained from the election by con-
cert.—Rule grented.
A NEW WAY OF MAKING LOVE.
THE KING P. NEWMAN.
The prosecutrix in this case (Elizabeth Mills) is a very rich
lady residing in the suburbs of Gloucester ; the defendant is a
dashing whiskerandos, of a gentlemauly exterior. It appeared
that on the night of the 10th of December last, a great
number of young men assembled in the vicinity of the pro-
secutrix's house, and amused themselves in letting off squibs,
and indulging in other kinds of fire-works, from eight
o'clock in the afternoon, until one in the morning ; among whom
the defendant took a prominent part, to the great annoyance of
the prosecutrix and several others of her family, fur which he was
tried at the Gloucester Sessions, and acquitted. The prosecutrix,
not satisfied therewith, subsequently indicted him for a conspiracy
to excite a riot, and had the indictment removed by a certiorari
into the Court of King's Bench. It was tried at the last Assiies
in Gloucester, before Mr. Justice Burrough, and the defendant
was found guilty, and brought up this day to receive judgment.
He put in an affidavit, denying having been actuated by malice
towards Miss Mills, or having any intention'to annoy her.
Mr. \Verso; addressed the Court in mitigation of punishment.
He observed, that the offence of letting oil fire-works was of a
,trifling gators- In the reign of William the Third there was en
paseedt'punishing such an (Mime, with a fine 4)f wily Vos. ,
Mr. TAUNTON for the post-ennui], observed that the trial
would not have been proceeded in if the defendant had made an
apology, and entered into recognizances not to annoy tine prose-
cutrix for the future. He was convicted of a gross, wanton, lend
unprovoked outrage on a lady of whom lie had no previous know-
ledge whatever. The judgment of the Court, he hoped, would
make the defendant enter into recognizaucea nut to annoy the pro-
secutrix for the future.
Mr. Jusrlce BAILEY in passing the sentence of the Court,
dressed the prisoner and said he had been convicted of a very un-
manly offence, in creating a tumult at a house inhabited solely by
females. Ile had stated in his affidavit, that he did not go there
for the purpose of annoying the prosreutrix, but lie did not give
any reason for his having been there ; if he did not go there to
annoy her, it was evident that he lent his assistance to those who
were annoying her. The sentence of the Court was, that he pay
to the King a fine of 1001. and give sureties himself in 1001.
and two sureties in 501. each,' to keep did peace for three years
towards the prosecutrix.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
LORD WILLIAM. LENNOX AND THE PALLADIUM.
Mr. DENMAN moved for a rule to show cause why criminal in-
formation should not be filed against W. Blenerhaseet Fairman, the
printer, publisher, and proprietor of a Sunday newspaper called the
Palladium, for having published a libel on Lord W. Lennox,
Captain of the Blues. The prosecutor stated in, his affidavit that
he has been for some time back ea.-Ailed in a series of paragraphs
in that paper, and among others in a suing which appeared in a
number of last Sunday, dedicated, without permission, to Lord
William Lennox and others, but the subject ofhispres
wenhtichte
com-
plainth appeared in two paragraphs of the sense paper, of
first was as follows :
Seconn EDITION.—The Court of Inquiry, we are assured,
have acquitted Lord Wit.mast `Lennox; and the Hs ao of
Wa:raat.on, it is confidently stated, has signified his approval
of their opinion. At this we are not surprised ; and,
for the honour of a noble race, we are rejoiced at the
result. The opinion of the Court was read, we undirstana,
at a subscription-house in St. James's-itreet, last night.—
Colonels Hill, Hamner, and Bouverie were the mem-
hers. In our next Number, the full particulare of the
investigation shall be laid before• our readers. For the
present we must refer them to a short paragraph in another part
of this day's impression, not having room for more upon this
subject. Lord William will publish, in all probability, his own
statement of the circumstances.
The following is the paragraph alluded to
COURT Or INQUIRY, ROYAL HORSE GUARDS (BLUE), ON, LORD

(let. Our time trill not allow tis to go into detail, but fte
articles reflected on his character both as a magistrate and as
a gentleman
.and were calculated to bring him into cautempt.—
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)
GILLET V. JACICSOL

The plaintiff in this case was the assignee of a bankrupt, who
was indebted to the plaintiff's attorney. The bankrupt's estate
was a creditor of the defendant's to the extent of upwards of 21.,
being the value of a wheel-barrow lent to him by the bankrupt,
and which be never returned. When the attorney consulted with
the plaintiff about the means of recovering his debt against
the bankrupt, he (the plaintiff) authorised him to prosecute some
of the bankrupt's debtors in his (plaintiff's) name. Under this
authority the attorney instituted the present action.
Mr. Sergeant Warm this day appeared in opposition to a rule
obtained by the defendant, to chew cause why the proceedings
should not be set aside, and the plaintiff's Attorney appointed to
pay the expellees to the defendant, or his attorney. The rule was
granted ou the defendant's application, supported by en affidavit
of the plaintiff, in which he denied having given authority to iu-
' stitute the action. Mr. Sergeant Wilde, boweYer, contended that
although the plaintiff's Attorney had not given instructions to
raise this particular action, the general authority granted by him
was sufficient ; and that, therefore, the rule should be
.discharged.
Mr. Sergeant Tannv was for the defendant, and admitted that
his client had still possession of the wheelbarrow.
The Court ordered the defendant to deliver up the wheelbarrow,
and allow the question of expeuces to rest. 'They, however,
strongly reprobated the cause adopted by the plaintiff's Attorney.