The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-03 00:00:00

November, the number of deaths, &c. in these
three days, was, at Puerto Santa Maria, in the
town and hospital—

New Cases 82—Cured 40—Deaths 26
At Xeres 48— 19— 19.
The number of sick remaining was, at Santa .3laria, 179 ; at
Xeres, 55.
No further accounts have been received from Lebrija.
BAP,CELONA, Nov. 7.—(PUBLIC HEALTH.)
Summary of the Number of Deaths, &c. in Barcelonetta,
a City, the Hospital of the Seminary, and the house of the
ice-Queen of Peru :
Remain.
517

Nov. 3,

New Cases. Cured.
34 24
34 17
31 9

Deaths.
27
29
25

4, 500
5, 488
6, 485
MURCIA, Nov. 10.—From the 2d to the sth
inst. three persons have died of the, yellow fever
at Aquila ; one cured, remaining seven.
GRANADA, Nov. 7.—The Governor of Malaga
has sent notice to the Governor-General of this
City, that Jaime Casasola, and four others, have
been taken, and having been examined, declare
that only the Commander of the hand, as he was
called, Don Juan Zhnenez, and another who was
killed, were the supporters of their proceedings,
and they pointed out the places where their arms
of all kinds and ammunition were deposited.
They will be tried according to the law of the
26th of April last.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 1.
i'LETCHAS V. SANDILANDS.
. This was an action for a college debt. The plaintiff, a trades-
man of Oxford, claimed for confectionary, &c. supplied to the
'defendant, a commoner of Trinity.
Mr. MARRYAT (for the plaintiff) was not quite sure that the
debt had not accrued in the minority of Mr. Sandilands but
proposed to show that the bonbons were necessaries, and that
(notwithstanding minority) the defendant would be liable for
them. Men, though students, (the Learned Counsel submitted),
must still be fed ;' and part of the debt claimed was for choco-
late, muffins, and cold meat for breakfast, viands which the
college did n'bt supply.
The LORD Cum, JusTecr—Nor suffer to be supplied
(the meat, that is), if they know it.
Mr. :M eniieveer Proceeded. There were articles certainly in
Mr. Fletcher's bill not absolutely essential to the existence of
the defendant : there was, for instance, a repast of beef, salad,
and ices, supplied for the entertainment of Mr. Sandilands and
his friends ; but then the term "Necessary" must be relatively
looked at. The question was, not what was necessary for the
man, but what was necessary for the man in the given situae
tion. A captain in the army (although minor) ordered liveries
for his servants—liveries had been held necessaries for his rank
and station. A minor entering a volunteer corps, regimental
uniform had been held a necessary. The question was, not
what was necessary for the existence of the man, but what was
necessary for the accomplishment of the man's reasonable and
allowable object in life. Now every one knew that:young men
were sent to college less for what they were to learn. than for
the connexions they were to form. Then how stood the pre-
sent case ? The object of the man was to make connexion ; for
.the making of connexion, feasts were necessary ; ergo, to the
man at college feasts were necessary ; and for those feasts the
man at college must pay.
George Cripps proved the delivery of the delicacies in ques-
tion, according to the charges in the bill.
The LoRDCitIEr• JUSTICE—Are they reasonable charges?
Witness—They are the usual charges. •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—T4at is not quite the same
thing.
Mr. WALronn (for the defendant) opened a case of mino-
rity. By college laws—article de moribus—regUlations were
laid down for the conduct of commoners. Those under 18 years
of age were not to complain of castigation : those under 20 were
not to use tobacco or to enter wine houses : and to all, at every
age, cpulx, or feasts, were forbidden. Could things expressly
forbidden by law be sued or recovered for as necessaries of life?
The present plaintiff had used the defendant most unfairly; for,
by forbearing to dun him for payment of his bill, he had wickedly
seduced him into increasing the amount of the debt.
Evidence was given of the defendant's minority at the time
when the plaintiff's claim had accrued.
Mr. MARRYAT had never before heard a debtor complain
of omission to dun on the part of his creditor. lie would
,prove, however, a promise to pay since the defendant had been
of full age.
Mr. J. Brooks (plaintiff's attorney) proved an offer of coin-
promise on the part of the defendant.
.Cross-examined—He admitted that the offer had been wade
while the defendant was in a lock-up house. He (Mr. Brooks)
was concerned for almost all the tradesmen in Oxford ; but he
did not farm the present action.
Mr. WALFORD denied the value of an offer made under
duresse, and after the commencement of an action.
Mr. NI ARRYAT replied.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the case to the Jury.—
Upon the first point—the necessity of the articles furnished—
his Lordship was of opinion that they were not necessary.
There could be no reason why a young man should breakfast
without eggs, provided
,he could, in present money, pay for
the eggs after lie had eaten them ; but to what end did college
rules prescribe economy, if tradesmen without the walls gave
encouragement to extravagance ? With respect to the second
question—the offer of compromise—his Lordship did not
think that a mere admission by a man of full age, that
he had incurred debts during his minority, rendered him
liable to the payment of those debts. An offer made to the
plaintiff's attorney, and at a time when the defendant was de-
sirous upon, any terms to obtain his liberty, must be (the
Learned Judge thought) • very guardedly received. In conclu-
sion, there was one observation which his Lordship felt him-
self bound to make. An attorney of London confessed that he
was professionally concerned for most of the Tradesmen in
Oxford. Now there was a University Court in which such
claimants had been • wont to sue. The process of that Court
was very inexpensive ' • college claims were very well under-
stood in it ; and his Lordship was sorry to see a system estae
Wished which took suits like the present out of their appropriate
jurisdiction.
The Jury withdrew ; and about an hour after sent a Message
into Court that they were unable to aee.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE asked whether the parties
would withdraw a juror ?
Mr. Mallet veer and Mr. WALFORD consented.
The Jury was then called into Court, and discharged. The
amount of the' plaintiff's claim was 241. 10S.