The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-19 00:00:00

A NEW FLYING FISH.

A very strong sensation was excited a few days
ago in the vicinity of Wandsworth, by the ap-
pearance of an extraordinary animal, which was
observed floating slowly through the air nearly
over the village. Its appearance, which was that
of a fish of about 20 feet in length, and propor-
tionate bulk, excited alarm amongst many, and
astonishment amongst all, who beheld it. What
was it ? and how it came there ? were questions
very eagerly and very naturally asked, but not so
easily answered. Conjectures were hazarded,
without number, and without result. Nobody
could give a satisfactory explanation of the phe-
nomenon, though every body made the attempt.
It was a fish—it was a sea serpent—it was " very
like a whale ;" and there were not a few who
thought that it was none of these, but something
supernatural, portentous of strange and awful
events : one or two of the more shrewd looked
upon it as one of the visitations with which the
country had been threatened in consequence of
the passing of the Catholic Bill. But whatever
it was, it seemed to be the general wish that it
should if possible be removed from the neigh-
bourhood. But then came the question—how ?
To take a monster of such dimensions alive,
was an attempt which might be attended with
much danger. It was therefore considered pru-
dent to kill it first, if it could be killed. For
this purpose some of the best .shots in the neigh-
bourhood were put in requisition. Several
fowling-pieces were discharged at it, without
any other effect than that of adding to the
terror of many of the spectators. At last a
gentleman brought out a long strand-piece,
loaded with duck-shot, and took his aim ; he
was successful. Some of the shot pierced the
animal's side, when, to the- terror of crowds who
looked on, it changed its form and sunk to the
earth, a shrunken and mis-shapen mass. For a
time no person was hardy enough to approach
it ; but at last, not seeing it move, the gentleman
who brought it down advanced, and to his sur-
prise, and the great relief of many present from
their alarms, found that it consisted of a quantity
of silk made in the shape of a fish and inflated
with gas. The phenomenon was now explained.
Further inquiry led to the discovery of the place
from whence it came, and it appeared that it was
a "loose fish" which had escaped from Vaux-
hall-gardens. The proprietors, it seemed, had
prepared this monster, intending that it should
rise from the waters of the Hydropyric Temple,
and float amidst the fire-works over the heads of
spectators. Having been properly inflated, it
was slightly fastened to that part of the temple
from which it was to ascend ; but, in the course
of the night, the strings became loosened, and
the monster escaped. Where it passed its night
is not known, but early on the following
morning it was seen floating over Wandsworth,
as we have described. The truant monster has
since been restored to its owners.

YORK MINSTER.—The cylinders are now
completely replaced to two of the cloistered columns of
the choir, the bases and capitals only remaining to be re-
paired. The workmen have begun to replace the stone
cornicing preparatory to laying on the roof, which latter
is rapidly progressing in the Minster-yard. It is expected
that the roof will be on, and covered in, by the end of
September.— Flail Packet.

This was an action by the assignees of Messrs.
Archibald Morton and Co., formerly bankers at
Wellingborough, against Messrs. Archibald Corbett
and Co., wholesale linen-drapers, of Friday-street,
Cheapside, to recover 27,0001., the amount of
monies belonging to Messrs. Morton and Co., and
alleged to have received by Archibald Corbett, and
applied by him for the partnership purposes of the
defendants. The case was referred to Mr. Taunton,
who, it was agreed, should state the facts in the form
of a special case for the opinion of the Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 18.
PUGH V. CAMPION.

The plaintiff in this cause is a painter, and the
defendant a carrier. The former drove out to the
country on the 23d of October last, in his gig. On
his return, whilst he was waiting for the gate of
the yard to be opened, the defendant's waggon,
drawn by three horses, came up, and notwithstand-
ing the plaintiff's calling out to the defendant, who
was sitting on the shaft, to take care, the waggon
ran against the gig, and threw out the plaintiff,
whose right arm was broken by the fall. He was
afterwards attended by two surgeons for a consider-
able time, and in their opinion he will never again
have the perfect use of his arm. For this injury the
present action was brought. No person appeared
on behalf of the defendant.—Verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 130/.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 18.
WAGNER AGAINST MEARS.
The deceased in this case was Ann Jones, a widow,
who died in December, 1821, aged 70, leaving
property to the amount of upwards of 13,0001. By
a will dated in July, 1821, and a codicil dated 30th
of November in that year, she bequeathed the bulk
of this property to two nieces, the children of a
sister, (having no nearer surviving relation,) and
small legacies to three nephews and a niece, the
children of another sister. Probate of this will was
granted (the two niecesbeing appointed executrices)
in January, 1822. After the lapse of six or seven
years, the probate was recalled, and a suit instituted
by Elizabeth Wagner, the other niece, with a view
of setting up an earlier will, dated in 1820, on the
ground that that of 1821 was the result of contriv-
ance and circumvention, the deceased being alleged
to be intestable at the time.
The CouitT was of opinion that there was no
ground whatever for the suit which had been insti-
tuted in this case. The nominal party, Elizabeth
Wagner, was a pauper, against whom no costs could
be recovered ; but the real party was Samuel New-
bury, a nephew, whose legacy had been reduced
(for reasons assigned by the testatrix) from 1,0001.
to 500/., who was even present and concurring at
the execution of the last will, who had acquiesced
in it for six or seven years, and had taken his
legacy under it. He now sought, by this in-
direct and irresponsible proceeding, to set up the
former will, instead of doing so at first. It was to
be regretted that he had obtained his legacy, for
otherwise the Court might have been able to do
ample justice to the executrices. All it could now
do was to pronounce in favour of the will of 1821,
and to mark its opinion of the transaction by con-
demning the pauper in costs, directing the taxation
to be suspended till it should appear to the Court
that she was in a condition to pay them.