The Sun.
London, England, 1811-02-07 00:00:00

HARRISON V. XING.

A Rule had been obtained a few days ago, call-
ing upon the eliiiniiir to shew cause wk, the writ
of ca. so. in flit. cause, should !Mt be set aside, and
the stun of I '2OOl. IWO in the hoods of the net
Le returned to the detendant, for so much money as
really appeared due to the plaintiff' (atter deducting
what had been before paid hi r 1), to be retained in
the hinds of the , Sheriff, and th, nce paid over to
the plaintif: and on Tuesday the A.ttorney, General
stiewed Cause agilinut but he admitted that, as
the plaintifillad aimed); obtained no less than t,3(s4r.
he thought, in strict equ!ty, he was entitled to nu
more than the duktence 'between that and 45001.
the amount of his claim •by a verdict obtained for'
tielamatfou, together with welt costs as were
due to him, which, in the 'whole appear to be
3171. I2s. 4d.
Lord ILLl,utisottonun said, " certainly that was
as mud' as it) justice he bad a right to seek. He had
brOUliht au WWII against the Sheriff to- obtain that
which his verdict fur slander had, given him, and
whether ono party'or another paid it, whether the
Sheriff' by his o%a hands, or through the ban& 'of
the defendant himself, (as appeared now to be the
case) it WVS-4360 and the same thing. His Lordship
also thought that as the defendant was obliged to
come with this application, he ought to bo allowed
his twits 'lot it.
Rule absolute as to the restraining of 3.17.1. 1 2i. 4d.
for the use of the plaintiff, in hands of the Sheriff,
iostead of 12001.

c.utrar OF COMMON PLEAS, Frs. 6.

WF.LBII V. FLOWER.

Mr. Serjeant BE:ST MOM' in this case to set aside
the verdiCt. It appeared that the plaintiff had re.
ceived ri check from the defendant, in payment for
an ox, bought at Souiliall. WIMI it WA% presented,
a second check wait given, payable at another bank-
Mg-house, Which stOpped payment before the;
;imprint of the check could be received. The plain.
tiff obtained a werdio for the Value of the check. It

was contended that the plain►iff could not . recover,
and that the verdiCt ought to be set aside, on the
ground, first, that t'i►e check was void, because it had
been,given ten miles trout London without a stamp,
reunited by the Act of the 3 1 3t. of the King ; se-
eon•.lly, that it bad been given when there was no
moue► in tt►e hands of the person to whom it was
sent for payment.
The,Co►trt was on the point of deciding on the
merittof.the check, when the Chief Justke rose to
:attend the Privy Council. The other proceedings
were not important. •

A fire 'broke out on Saturday, at Mr. Daniell's,
Coach-maker, in Greek-street, Soho, which, by the
early arrival of the. fire-engines, and the prompt
assistance of the work Men and others, was got out
without spreading to any greater extent.
• Sunday morning, six o'clock, a Coal-heaver, of
the name of William Gary, who lodged in Cur•.
tier's-row, Blackfriars, was discovered ..,hanging,
suspended by a cord, fastened to the tester of the
bedstead j he was immediately cut down, but quite
dead, The cause of his having committed this rash
44 is supposed to have been a family dispute i he
has left a wife and four children.
Mouday evening, eight o'clock, as Mr. Probet,
of Fore•strcef, Moorfields, was coming from Dol,;
wieh, in a onc.horse chaise, one of the wheels
came off in consequence of the lynch pin coming
out, when the vehicle overturned in the Borough,
by which MO. had one of his shoulders dislocated
and was otherwise much bruised, and was convey.
ed home in a coach. _ _

Moot Sues.--Languet and Stow relate, in their
Chronicles, that in the year 1233, upon the 7th of
April, limn! suns were seen besides the natural sun,
(which, in those days of ignorance and superstition,
were ascribed to be the forerunners of war, famine,
peatilencea„, &c. Sm.) for as those Chronicles testify,
there were touch strife and dissension stirred up be-
tween Henry the Third'and the lords of his king.
darn; for the very next year England was visited by
fire and sword troraWales to Salisbury, which town
was bi:lnt anon after, attended with a great drought
and, pestilence. Also in the year 1466, thiee suns
made their appearance but the day before the three
tau is, Edward, Earl of March, with the Earl of
Pembroke, and the Earl of.Wiltshire, fought the
great battle at Mortimer's Cross, as Stow atfirmeth,
in which the Earl of March put the others to $i ht,
with great destruction of their soldiers. Iwo
-more irtatances are also chronicled • one by Fulk in
his Meteors, who a, that in the year 1526, to.
wards , the slatighter of Lewis the Second, King of
Hungary, three suns marched forth. The second
instance is tat by lnemond, who saith, that in the
year 1619, were three also 'seen at Lovain, in the
month of May, at sun

EDINBURGH, FEB. I.

HIGH COURT Of ADMIRALTY.

Douc,LAS AND COMPANY V. TILLEft.

wastt private Criminal promotion at tt a in.

educe of Tf.mois Dunlop D,iuglas, Archibald
Douglas, and James Graham, merchants and un-

derwriters in Glasgow,. against James Teller, 'mer-
chant in Ayr. 'llle charge was that Mr. 'fetter
had given a I.ll+e rvprvsentation el the totatti of a
certain vessel, with a view to get insurance elfeeted

upon her and t!►at, in consetittenee of this false
representation, the ‘.ro,4ecotors had agreed to insure
her, but that they refrained Irutu dying so, because
they abet wards thsenvvred the incorrettness of the
insurer's stmemetit. No such prosesution ever oc-

curred before : and this on:was not at the lost:vice

of the Public Prosecutor, but .at the instance of the
priVato underwriters, with concourse of his Ma-
jesty's Advocate, that concourse being what almost
every private patty can coMmand,
• The case being supposed so be of a maritime na-

;me, was brouglit into the Court of Admiralty on
the .9th day of November, 181 u. The panne!
pirated"• Not Guilty, and accompamed this plea with
a solemn assevera►ion of i►►s innocence, and a very
short statement, which went to show that the pro.
seeutors were completely eoistahen in •• their idea of-
thet facts. . His Counsel then.objezied to the Prose-
ct'tor'a title, to pursue noon this wound—that. the

intli6tnient itself bore that, tire itTitutanc4 bad not
beeu rtfected; that, consequottly, Itlore had been
no injury done to their property ;. and that, there-
fore, they had no interest in the prusecution. This
argument having been answered by. the prosecutors,
the ple;imittaty def: nee was tepell:d.
The Panners 7' Intel then stated :that their sole
view, in advattoi tat deteoce, wam..not to prevent
a trial, but to be le to their (Aleut the benefit • a

a trio], which, him being ascert,ined to be carried
pct at the instance of a compete..t party, could lead
to a itgal isin.e, instead of tur.iing out altogether
nugatory and that, thelefime, altogether the relic-
vaney of the libel seemed very questionable, they
did not intend to insist on any objettion upon that
ground. The Judge-Adrpral, however, ta prop. ia
111.0lig, stated, that, although he bad repelled the

ohjeetion to the prosteu-tors' title, be had great
doubts of the relevancy of art libel which they had
raised ; and that he wished the Counsel upon both
sides to discuss this doubt; Upon this suggestion of
tue Court, an Argument arose, anu was followed out
to considerable fulness.. Thu view of the ptosecti7
tors amounted to this, that although the policy
had not been signed, and thus the crime was not
completed, yet that, in the circumstances of the
case, this attempt amounted to an indidab,e offence.
The view taken by the panners counsel was, that
no such attempt could be prosecutea as a crime ;
that, even. if the pannel's intentions bad been itn.
proper (which, however, was solemnly denied)) and
had been nautili), carried into effedt, tbie. would nut
amount to 0 crime by. the lOW ci 64;01140d ; and
that /his was so clear, that the prosecutors had
apparently mooned to the trial merely ss c mode of
harassing an insurer, and exposing-We to Uhmerit.
ed obloquy. Alter the debate,. t .Lutfge-M—.
ordered the parties to sit.* in vititten intor.
mations. •

The proseetitorriloded theirs on the gOth of No-
vember; ilt It was always, and we understand,
most justly treated in ate Cowl sit learned, elabo-
rate and abler-alie panne), before this inform-
tion had been seen by him, or any of liht, Counsel,
gave in to the Court a minute (gth November,
18 10), setting tomb, that he did not Intsgn to give
in any information upon his part. The wound of
this resolution was stated to be, iftat, entisciOns of