The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-19 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, FEB. 18.—Wind S.W.—Arrived the Julia,
Visser, from Antwerp.
PLYMOUTH, FEB. 17.—Wind S.E.—Arrived the
General Palmer, Truscott, from Portsmouth for
Madras.

FALraouvi, FEB. 17.—Arrived from London the
Ruby, Connolly, for Lisbon.

The Company's chartered ship Alfred arrived off
Plymouth the 16th instant. She sailed from China
the 13th October, and St. Helena the 30th Decem-
ber. The under-mentioned ships arrived in China
as follows :--Alfred, Kellie Castle, Broxbornebury.
Bridgwater, Herefordshire, Repulse, Lowther Castle,
Barossa, Lord Hungerford, Duke of York, Hythe,
Bombay, Buckinghamshire, Charles Grant, Water-
loo;Duke of Sussex, General Kyd, and Atlas.
The Broxbornebury was despatched for England
on the same day as the Alfred.
The Lord Hungerford and Barossa are expected
to be ready to be despatched about the middle of
October.

The first regular despatch was to include the
Bridgwater, Herefordshire, Repulse, and Lowther
Castle, and probably the Duke of York and Hythe.
The,Farquharson was at Prince of Wales's Island
on the 30th August; and on the departure of the
General Kyd from• that island on the 31st August,
the Windsor and Vansittart were seen entering the
port.
The Inglis was all well on the 20th October, in
the China Sea, lat. 5. 57. North, long. 106. 7. East.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE XING, AT TIIE PROSECUTION OF HENRY WINCHESTER,
ESQ. V. THE CORPORATION OP LONDON.

Phis was an issue arising out of a writ of manda-
mus directed by the Court to the Corporation of
London, calling on them to show cause why they
refused to swear in Henry Winchester, Esq., as Al-
derman of the ward of Vintry, in the room of Chris-
topher Magnay, Esq. deceased.
When the names were called over, it appeared
that there were only seven special Jurors in atten-
dance, and the Solicitor-General on the part of the
prosecution, prayed a tales.
The Hon. Mr. LAW opened the pleadings, and the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL With whom were Messrs.
TAUNTON and ALDERSON) addressed the Jury for
the prosecution. He stated that the question for the
Jury was only to try whether a gentleman named
Winchester, or a gentleman named Wilde, was duly
elected to fill the office of Alderman for the Ward of
Vintry, vacant by the demise of Christopher Mag-
nay, Esq., late Alderman of the City of London. The
election took place on the 2d Nov. 1826, and there
were three candidates, Messrs. Winchester and Wilde,
and a Mr. Crooke, but as there were only three votes
recorded for Mr. Crooke, there was no question as
to his election. The election being ended, a
scrutiny was demanded, and the returning officer
stated that there were twenty-six votes for Mr.
Winchester, and twenty-three votes for Mr. Wilde.
Mr. Winchester was, therefore, declared duly elected.
Mr. Wilde, however, thought proper to petition the
Court of Aldermen against the election, and
on consideration of the petition, the Court
of Aldermen decided that the election was

illegal, and that the parties were at liberty to go to
a new election. Mr. Winchester then applied to
this Court for a mandamus, and the question the
Jury now' had to try was, whether the election was
legal or illegal. There were two objections to the
election stated before the Court of Aldermen.
First, That there were three Poll-clerks employed
on the first day of the election, and only one Poll-
clerk on the following days. And Secondly, that the
Wardmote was virtually dissolved, being adjourned
sine die, and that the scrutiny was not a continuance
of the Wardmote, and therefore an illegal proceed-
ing. As to the first objection, it would appear that
the Lord Mayor discharged two of the poll-clerks
after the first day of the election, because it was
found that their services were not at all necessary ;
and there was no insinuation that the remaining
poll-clerk had betrayed his trust, or acted partially
in any instance. As to the other objection, it was a
dry point of law entirely for the consideration of the
Court; and he contended that under the 11th
George 1., for the regulation of elections in the
City of London, the election was legal.
Before the case was proceeded with, Sir JAS.
SCARLETT (with whom were the RECORDER, the
COM3ION SERGEANT, and Mr. PARKE) suggested
that the objections to the scrutiny would employ
the Court for a long time, and might subsequently
be found altogether useless. He therefore proposed
that the question of law which arose on the case
should be first disposed of, and the scrutiny might
be entered on in another place.
Lord TENTERDEN thought it would be extremely
inconvenient to enter into the scrutiny in this
Court, as it would prevent the regular business
of the Court from being proceeded in, and in-
jure the interest of other suitors. For his own
part he had no interest in the matter, for he had
only one consolation in the performance of his duty,
which was, that he could never be made to get
through more business than he did.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT said, that whatever verdict
the Jury might return this day on the facts, it would
be for him to move the Court next terra to set
aside the verdict, in order to have their opinion on
the points of law which arose. It was much better,
therefore, that a special case should be now agreed
upon, which would save muck trouble and loss of
time. .

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had no objection to
accede to the proposition of Sir James Scarlett, and
was only desirous that the case should be argued
early in the Term.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT admitted that it would be
most desirable to have the opinion of the Court on
the case as early as possible.
Mr. Woodthorp (the Tevvn Clerk), and Mr. Rey-
nolds, the Poll Clerk of Vintry Ward, produced the
precepts under which the wardmote was held, and
the poll-books.
Under the direction of Lord TENTERDRN, the
Jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to the opinion of the four Judges on the points
of law.