The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

CARR. V. MURRAI.

This was a demurrer to an action of debt upon articles of agree-
ment entered into between one David Savage, and the defendant.
The plaintiff was the assignee of Savage, who had become insol-
vent, and disputes having arisen between him and the defendant,
respecting an agreement, by which Savage had bound himself to
sell, and the defendant to buy, a life-estate of the insolvent, a
bill in Chancery was filed against the defendant ; subsequently it
was agreed to refer all matters in dispute to arbitration, and the
parties bound themselves to abide by the award. An umpire
made an award, by which the parties were directed to meet at the
Star I►Sn, in Oxford, on the 23d of January, 1826, when and
where Savage was to execute a conveyance of his interest to the
defendant ; and the defendant was to pay down 10001. and a frac-
tion. The defendant failed to attend, by which it was contended
he had become liable to pay the amount. The objection to
this doctrine was, that no execution, nor tender of any execu-
tion of the insolvent's interest, had ever been made to the
defendant. On the other hand, it was submitted, that
the insolvent had always been ready to execute the conveyance, and
that the only reason of its not having been done at the appointed
time was, the non-attendance of the defendant.
The Court thought there ought to be an averment, that, at
least, the execution of the conveyance had been tendered, or that
the execution was ready to be made, or something of this nature,
and therefore directed the case to stand over for a week, that the
parties might have an opportunity of further considering what
they would do.

(sirrnics IN NISI FILMS.)
TIIE KING V. BF! CHAM''' AND °TITERS.

This was an indictment against Edward Beecbamp, John
Beechamp, John Sanders, Edward Ellis, and Thomas Brown, for
assaulting George Bowley, and unlawfully rescuing from him two
horses, two waggons, and a quantity of gunpowder, under the
following circumstances:—

The Act of Parliament relating to the transmission of gun-
powder, requires, among other things, that the barrels in which
it is conveyed should be covered with leather or saltpetre bags, or
in default thereof it is liable to he seized by any person, and on
conviction before a Magistrate to be forfeited. On the Bth of
February 1826, the prosecutor observing two waggons belonging
to Taylor and Allcock (the proprietors of gunpowder mills
at Deptford) paSsing through Hounslow, conveying about
fifty barrels of gunpowder uncovered, seized them, as by the
Act empowered, and took them to a shed about half a mile
outside of Hounslow, where he proceeded to unload them,
being assisted by Brown, the headborough, and the two
Beechamps, who drove the waggons, and placed 18 barrels
within the shed, when Sanders and Ellis, the other two defend-
ants belonging to Taylor and Allcock's establishment, came up,
and prevented the prosecutor from unloading any snore, saying,
that that was not a proper place to deposit the gunpowder, anti
ultimately drove the waggons off with that part of the gunpowder
which remained unloaded. Brown, the headborough, refused to
interfere. The subsequent conviction and forfeiture of the gun-
powder then seized having been proved,
Mr. BaonEateK addressed the Jury for the defendants ; he
contended that as a section of the Act, which empowered the
one
these defend
eie
fme ofne d gnn ut
the
were
leVir,teol
house of
warrantedprohibitedof'any
person
n anyrenotonvtohr,aeg
dealerthan
t the
e spiOonwl btdhs. eartt,oa
rtl:hiecelareet,
beimg more than the legal quantity at the time in the house.
The LORD Caesar JUSTICE was of a different opinion, but
would reserve that point for the consideration of the Court.
The Jury consequently found all the defendants Guilty, except
Brown, who took no part in the rescue, subject to the opinion
of the Court as to the point reserved.
There was a second indictment against the two-Beechamps,
Sanders, Brown, Richard Taylor, and Wm. Cheetam, for carry-
ing off, on the subsequent day, the eighteen barrels which had
been unloaded. They were all found guilty, subject to the opi-
nion of the Court, as to the legality of their conduct.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
The Lord Chief Baron was unable to attend to-day, in conse•
quence of illness. Mr. Baron Garrow presided in his absence.

THE KING V. GOODIN.
This was an information filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General,
against the defendant, a farmer, residing in Devonshire, charging
him with having, so tar back as the year 1524, purchased two
tubs of smuggled spirits, from a person named Bishop, well know-
ing the said spirits to have been smuggled.
The case for the Crown was conducted by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL. It appeared from the evidence of Bishop, whose pre-
*eut occupation is that of a baker, but who, at the time laid in

the indictment, dealt largely in what, in the parlance of
smugglers, is called " the freeVade ;" that he took the two tubs ...
in question to the defendant's house, concealed in large bags,
which to outward view were filled with straw. After Much deli-
beration :•
and much balancing of the probabilities of detection, it -
was at length determined between the " contracting parties," that
the spirits should be delivered at one of the defendant's windows,, -
and there at the appointed hour, the defendant and his housekeeper
were stationed to receive them, and gave in return the sum of six
pounds, which was the consideration previously agreed upon.
The evidence of Bishop was corroborated by his son, who had
been a party to all the proceedings.
For the defendant it was argued, that both father and son were un-
worthy of credit, inasmuch as they had pleaded guilty to the crime of
being concerned in a trade of which the defendant's counsel
now expressed the most constitutional abhorrence, but to which
the defendant himself, according to the finding of the Jury, was
in 18 4 , indebted for two kegs of very excellent spirits. It
was further complained of, on the part of the defendant, that
he had been put to the enormous expence of defending this
information in the county of Middlesex, whilst it might
for all the purposes of justice, been tried in his own county.
Mr. Baron GAaaow summed up the evidence, and the jury re-•
turned a verdict for the Crown.