The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-28 00:00:00

cumstances; it will not allow old rules to be a pe-
remptory guide in new circumstances; but neither
does it deem the conclusions of those hypothetical
systems, which form the easy learning of the pre-
sent day, to be a safe rule of conduct. This libe-
rality consists in applying a keen and enlightened
sagacitY to the circumstances with which he has to'
deal, and in pursuing the course of action which
seems the most adapted to those circumstances.—
It is in this way that he has proceeded towards
South America, deserving much praise for what he
has done, and deserving not less praise for what he
has not done.—lbid.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL 27.

COOK V. SHE EARL OF SCARSDALE.

This was an action brought by Mr. William Cook,
executor and son of the late Mr. John Cook, against
the Earl of Scarsdale.

Mr.MARRYATT said, that the facts of the case

were these :—So long ago as the year 1784, Mr.
John Cook obtained a judgment against the Earl of
Scarsdale for 1,0G31. ls., and 60s. costs. Up to
the month of April in that year, the Earl of Scars-
dale had a seat in Parliament. Parliament having
been dissolved in that month, and he not being re-
elected, found it necessary to go abroad, where he
remained for 20 years.
The Learned Counsel was here interrupted by a
proposition from the other side, the result of which
was, that a verdict of 6001. for the plaintiff was
given by consent.

IMPERIAL DISTILLERY COMPANY.
BIRD V. ASTON AND °VIERS.

This was an action to recover the sum of 4,1321.
for goods furnished to the Imperial Distillery Com-
pany.

Mr. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. CAMPBELL)
said that this was an action against three gentlemen,
Messrs. Aston, Plomer, and Knibbs, shareholders in
the Imperial Distillery Company. The facts of the
case were these :—ln 1825, a Meeting was held
under, to all appearance, the best auspices, for the
purpose of establishing a Joint-stock Company. It
was proposed to raise 600,0001. in shares, by way
of capital. The plaintiff had furnished this Com-
pany with iron tanks, and other goods. This pro-
perty was still in the possession of the Company,
who, instead of coming- forward to pay their debts,
or make some composition, had actually endeavoured
to sell this property for which they had never paid.
When the affairs of the Company had. been despe-
rate, Mr. Bird, the plaintiff, went ~to them to see
what he could do towards, at least,
.recovering the
property which he had furnished,' if he could not
obtain the money,for it. He ,was,put off from time
to time, upon various pretencfs,' and, at length, they
told him that their engineer was liable, and not
them ; that they would pay their engineer, a Mr.
Griffiths, and that Mr. Griffiths must account to the
plaintiff. Upon this Mr. Bird went to Griffiths, and
got from him an assignment of all his claims upon
the Company. This, however, they told him,
would not do: ' It was clear, from this conduct,
what the intentions of the Company were : their
aim was to avoid all liability. In order to effect
this, they said, we will make one of our own body,
one of our own partners, our engineer : he shall
order goods, and when any body claims payment
of us, we will say, " No, he is liable." If he can't
pay, he has no remedy against us in law, but must
file a bill in equity, to which each individual of the
company may put in an answer, and by these means
we shall gain at least 60 years before any thing like
a settlement of the matter could be effected. The
Jury would see, then, that there were no lawyers
among them. (Here a gentleman sitting before Mr.
Scarlett, made some communication to him which
we could not hear.) He had just been informed
that he was wrong in saying that there was no
lawyer in this company; there was one lawyer, of
whom it was, of course, impocsible to speak in any
but terms of the greatest respect, especially as he was
a member of the Rouse of 'Commons. The person
to whom he alluded was Mr. John Wilks, the mem-
ber for Sudbury.--(A laugh.)—He had thus stated
to the Jury the mode in which it was attempted by
this Company to evade their just debts; but he
trusted that by their verdict this day, it would be
proved that their schemes were not successful ones,
and that the nefarious stock-jobbing concerns which
had of late inundated the town, would neither be
countenanced nor protected.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury,
who, after consulting for a few minutes, returned a
verdict of 4,1321. for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 27.

STAPLES AND ANOTHER. V. LOUGHRAN AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET stated, that this was
an action on two bills of exchange, amounting to-
gether to a sum of something more than 2,.500/.,
which had been accepted by an agent of the de-
fendants.

The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.

MEETISGS OF CREDITORS.

LONDON DI A RY.--TI.T.SDL'
Commissioners, B
Alliston and Smith, Lam-
beth
Anderson, A., Union-st lO
Barker, E., Somers'-town lO
Bishop, J., Goswell-st 9
Calvert, S., Fore-street 9
Campbell, C., Bishopsgate- _

MAY 1.--(At the Court of
3asinghall.street.)
Elliston W. and H., Lea-

mington 1
Hacker, F., Canterbury I
Heifer' J., Wickham Mar
ket, Suffolk
Hill, R., Southwark lO
Hooper, H., Bognor ....
Ingle.dew, S., Wood-st. lO
Inglis, J., Mark-lane lO
Jackson, V., Royal Arcade 11
Joel, 1., Preston lO
Kenworthy, J., Ironmon-
monger-lane lO
Kerrigan, R., Hackney lO
Larmuth, A, Spa-fields 2
Littel, G., Spitalfields
Lupton, C., Clerkenwell
M'Kinnon, T., Wapping 2
Moyes, J., Bouverie-st ll

street - 10
Cardinal, J., Leicester ll
Carpenter, W., Leaden-

bill-street
Coley, F., Broad-street lO
Collings and Co., Bishops_
gate-street lO
Cressw:ll, T., Cross-lane l2
.- .

Dainton,'W.; Piccadilly II
Day, W., Lime-street-pas-

sage lO
Dignarn, J., Newman-st l2
Dutton, J., Feneburch-st lO

COUNTRY DIARY.—TUESDAY, MAY I.
Allen, J., Oxford—Mitre, Oxford ll
Anderson, R., Manchester—Star, Manchester
Anthony, It., Plymouth—Royal Hotel, Plymouth 5
Boorman, R., Boughton Idallierbe, Kent—Dog and Bear,
Lenham 1
Burch, J., Downham-market—Crown, King's Lynn. 7
Cooke,W., Rockfield, Monmouthshire—Shire-hall, Hereford 11
Crook, W., Benacre—Bear, Melksham II
Eburne, F., Ryton—Bull's Head, Meriden l2
Edmondson, W., Outhwaite, Lancashire--Green Dragon,
Kirkby Lons&de - ll
Gibbins and Co. Birmingham—Royal hotel, Birmingham 3
Harris, J., Modbury—Globe, Exeter ll
Holker, W., 1 eels—Court-house I
Longton and Co., Liverpool—York hotel, Liverpool 1
Morley, W., Manchester—Star, Manchester lO
O'Neill, J., Liverpool—George, Liverpool
Parkes, G., Dudley—George, Bewdley lO
Pitt, H., Liverpool—George, Liverpool
Radehill!, J., Burnley—Thorn, Burnley
Rawling, 8., Leeds—Court-house, Leeds 6
Robinson, P., Cla)Tole—Hotel, Newark l2
Shaw, S., Newcastle-under-Lyme—Castle, Newcastle ll
Shelley, W., Newcastle—Roebuck, Newcastle l2
Silvester, T,, Withington, Worcestershire—Golden Lion,
Worcester ll
timith, J,, Newcastle—Roebuck, Newcastle ll
Spencer' J., Burnley—Thorn, Burnley lO
1 errill, W., Cambourne--Elliott's, Devonport ll
Thompson, 1., Bilston—l.ittleton Arms, Penkridge ll
Tute, W., Leeds—Court-house, Leeds ...... . ............. - II
Tutin, R., Birniingham—Hen, Birmingham l2
Watson and Co., Shrewsbury-Fox, Shrewsbury ll
Watson, W., Lower Shuckburgh, Warwick—Craven Arms,
Southern 6
Watts, %V., Oldbury—Hart, Tethury
Woodley, F., Andover—Star and Garter, Andover 3

William Green, a young man about 17 years
of age, who was apprentice to Mr. Laycock, of
Wakefield, cooper, met with his death on Fri-
day last, under very unfortunate circumstances.
On that day, a boy of the name of Langstaffe
came into the shop in which the deceased was at
work, for the purpose of collecting chips, and
had some altercation with Green, in the course
of which he took up a knife, used by coopers in
their trade, and threw it with such violence at
the deceased, that it penetrated through his
clothes into the abdomen, and inflicted so severe
a wound, that notwithstanding every medical, aid
which could be afforded, he expired between
four and five o'clock the next morning. The
Coroner's Jury have found a verdict of " Man-
slaughter " against Langstaffe, who is only twelve
years old, but the police have not yet been able
to apprehend him—Leeds Intelliencer.