The Sun.
London, England, 1829-10-23 00:00:00

RUM FORD MARKET.-00. 21.
A. d. tog. d. s. d. 8. d.
Beef 2lO 3' 8 I Veal
Mutton 3 0 310 Pork 3 9 4 8
Suckling Calves from 14s. to 30s. ; Quarter old Pigsl2e to 15s. each.
A good supply, and a dull trade.

Mr. JOSHUA SALT, of Lounsley-green, near
Chesterfield, has a cow in his possession, of the short-
horned breed, that gives upwards of 21 quarts of milk
daily, and from which the unprecedented quantity of three
pounds of butter is churned, making 21 pounds of butter
weekly, 16 ounces to the pound ; she calved in Chester-
field race week.— Chesterficld Gazette.

BRIGHTON, OCT. 21.—SPLENDID EQUES-
TRIAN FETE.—A match, which had excited great inte-
rest here, was decided this morning on the London road.
A gentleman had betted T. H. KEMP, El. M.P. 100
guineas to five that he could not ride one of his own horses
nine miles within the hour in the following manner, viz. :
—three miles at a walk; three at a trot; and three at a
gallop. The odds had varied from 10 to Ito6to 3 cm
time; and the performance was considered very difficult,
as Mr. KEMP rode 14 stone. Soon after starting, the
horse broke six times in the trot, which caused some delay,
but he Fe:formed the three miles in 14 minutes. He com-
pleted the same distance, at a walk, in 36 minutes ; the
gallop in SI minutes, winning cleverly, with a minute and
a half to spare. The horse vas excellently rode by Mr.
KEMP, who was greatly cheered by the spectators. Not-
withstanding the early hour at which the match came off
many gentlemen were present, including Sir H. FALICI-
NNE, Mr. CAMPION, M&. STEWART, Colonel Alavnit,
and divers cfficera of the 15th Hussars, Betting to a large
amount took place, and a powerful interest was excited.
At this time Mr. Kkair and a large party of gentlemen,having dined there, are passing a most cheerful evening at
the
Royal York Hotel,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 22.
MURRAY V. HODGSON, ESQ. N.P.
This was an action on a promissory note made by
the defendant for 8,0001., dated the 23d of Novem•
her, 1825, payable eight months after date, to the
order of I.l9avland Stephenson, and by him endorsed
to the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the plaintiff',
case. The plaintiff, Mr. Adam Murray, was a sur•
veyor, who had conducted himself with great repu-
tation and integrity, and by his industry had realized
a competency for himself and his family. Nearly
the-whole of it, however, had been put in jeopardy
by the conduct of a person whose name had for a
long time made a great noise in the world,—he
meant Mr. Rowland Stephenson. The defendant,
Mr. Frederick Hodgson, was a gentleman of large
-fortune, and a Member of Parliament. He, to hi-
misfortune, had been on terms of great intimacy
-with Mr. Rowland Stephenson. They had been
connected together for a long time, partly for pur-
poses of business and partly for pleasure. The note
of hand upon:"Which the present action was brought
had been given by Mr. Hodgson to Mr. Stephenson,
and by that gentleman it was endorsed to the plain-
tiff (Mr. Murray), as a security for money which he
had placed in Mr. Stephenson 's hands for the pur-
pose of having it laid out at interest. The claim
which Mr. Murray 'had against Mr. Stephenson
considerably exceeded the 8,0001. the amount of the
note, though that sum formed -by far the greater
portion of it. Mr. Murray had been employed
by Mr. Stephenson in the way of his profs-.
sion, about two years before Mr. Stephenson
disappeared in this country, and he had opened
an account at the banking-house of Messrs.
Remington, where Mr. Stephenson had the com-
-:niand of the money of Mr. Murray which had becn
intrusted to his care. The note bore date the 23d
of November, 1825. Whether Mr. Stephenson
had given Mr. Hodgson any consideration for the
'note, or whether it had been given for the personal
accommodation of Mr. Stephenson, he (Mr. Murray)
. ew not. What the transactions between the
,fifties were, were best known to themselves. 11..1r.
urray knew nothing of them at the time he re-
' ceived the note nor since, except what he had heard
after Rowland Stephenson absconded, and when
Mr. Hodgson was applied to for payment of the
4.3,0001. At an. interview which Mr. Murray then
had with him, he was told that there would ba no
6bjection to the principal 'remaining in his hands,
.be paying the interest. Mr. Hodgson then request-
-0 time; but ultimately refused payment altogether.
I`..lnit: refusal had given rise to the present action.
He Attorney-General) should, in the outset,
Malt prove the hand-writing of the parties to the
•tiates.. That would be sufficient to entitle the plain-
tiff to a verdict in the absence of any. case on the
part of the defendant. If any grounds of defence
should be offered, he would contend against them in
the best.way he could; and he hoped he 'should do
so with success.

The note was then put in and read; the hand-
writing of the parties being admitted.
Mr. BROUGHAM 'would state to the Jury the cir-
cumstances under which the note had been made by
Mr. Hodgson and passed to Rowland Stephenson.
Mr. Stephenson had been the owner of an estate
near Epsom, in Surrey, called Pitt's-place, and Mr.
HEfil!speing desirous of possessing a treaty
too` between, them for the purchase.. This
was in November, 1825'. A contract was entered
into by which it was stipulated that in consideration
of a certain sum, to be afterwards agreed on, Mr.
Hodgson should become the purchaser of the estate.
The written agreement prepared between the parties
bore date and was signed by Rowland Stephenson
on the 23d of November, 1825, the very day on
which the note of hand was given. The considera•
tion stated in the agreement as having been paid as
part of the intended purchase money was 8,0001.
No such sum, nor in fact any sum, was paid • by Mr.
Hodgson to Mr. Stephenson, but the note in ques-
tion was passed by the former to the latter party for
the accommodation of Mr. Stephenson, and partly
in reference to the bargain for the purchase of Pitt's-
place, it being understood that if on investigation it
should be found that the sum due to Mr. Stephen-
son on the purchase was less than that fur which the
note was given, the balance should be paid to Mr.
Hodgson ; but if found to be more, Mr. Hodgson
was to pay to Mr. Stephenson the balance due to
him. The note having been dated in November,
1825, and made payable in July, 1826, and the time
stipulated for the completion of the purchase of Pitt's-
place expiring at the latter period, application was
immediately made by the solicitor of Mr. Hodgson
for an abstract of Mr. Stephenson's title. It was
furnished by Mr. Stephenson's solicitor in Decem-
ber, 1825, and immediately laid before an eminent
conveyancer for his perusal on Mr. Hodgson's be-
half. -On examining the title, as disclosed by the
abstract, innumerable objections were found. These
were stated by the conveyancer in his written
opinion, and the abstract, with the opinion, was re-
turned to Mr. Stephenson's solicitor in Mardi, 1826.
The solicitor found that the objections could not be
got over, and that the title could not be perfected.
The abstract was never returned to Mr. Hodgson's
solicitor, and all parties considered the contract at
at end. ,The note having been given at the request
and for the accommodation of Mr. Stephenson on
Mr. Hodgson's entering into the contract for the pur-
chase, it was, on the abandonment of that contract,
taken up by Stephenson ; and if Mr. Hodgson had
thought proper to apply for it at any time, it would
have been given up to him, he having nothing fur-
ther to do with the estate. As soon as it was dis-
covered that a good title could not be made, Mr.
Stephenson resumed the ownership of the estate.
These were the facts which be (Mr. Brougham)
should lay before the Jury. When he had done so,
and proved that no consideration for the note ever
passed from Rowland Stephenson to Mr. Hodgson,
and that Mr. Murray received it after it had become
due, it would be quite unnecessary for him to go
into the other circumstances of the case for the pur-
pose of satisfying them that Mr. Murray had acted
without due caution. These facts, as detailed by
the Learned Counsel, were afterwards proved in
evidence, after which the Jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.

WEST V. HALL AND ANOTHER.
This was an action by a Imp-factor, to recover
1,658/. 10s., the balance alleged to be duo to him
on a sale of hops to Cie defend:l:as in July, 18'25.
The Jury found for the phiintiff— Damages 1,658/. 10:,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 22.

IMPER IA L DISTILLERY COMPA NY.- PONTIFEX

DUNSTAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action in which the plaintiff and his
partner, who are coppersmiths, sought to recover
from the defendants, Messrs. Dunstan, Piumer,
Trower, Hartley, Green, Levi, Bensusan, Shake-
shaft, Wickev, and Clifton, the value of certain
works and labour performed for a Joint Stock Com-
pany called the Imperial Distillery Company, of
which the defendants were aeged to be partners,
as Directors or Shareholders.—The Jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiffs for the =omit claimed, viz.
2621. and costs,
The ease lasted from the sitting of the Court
until eleven o'clock at night.

Another Stall in Salisbury Cathedral is now
vacant by the dcath of the R'n's JOHN GUARD: B. 1),