The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-21 00:00:00

Pit ICE 7D.

le had never seen the letter to whieli Sir ..

Robert
.

•.
Seppings was replying ; that he knew nothing os
and had not had any thing whattcivet to do either
with its composition or its publication: Sir Robert
Seppings, in his letter, had made use of certain ex-
pressions, which, in the ?pinion of many naval offi-
cers, applied to Captain Phillips exclusively; and
though the circumstances stated in the letter were
.not true in themselves, they alluded to facts which
showed that the expressions used wire intended to
apply to Captain Phillips, and to him alone. Capt.
Phillips stated in his affidavits tha't he was acquaint-
ed with Sir R. Seppings; that he had never had
any difference with Sir R. Seppings, and that he
therefore could not conceive why Sir R. Seppings
considered him to be the author of the atta ti:ade

upon him. in the Maidstone Gazette. He (the
Attorney-General) had likewise affidavits from seve-
ral persons, who stated their belief that the libel
applied to Captain Phillips, and it was upon these
grounds that he now made his application to the
Court.

Lord TENTEItDEN—Take a rule to show cause.

EARL DUDLEY AND IVARD V. ROBINS.

This was an action brought U 1 the noble plaintiff,
:o recover of the defendant, an auctioneer, living in

Warwick-street, Golden-square, the sum of 6,060/.,
paid to him as a deposit on an estate which his Lord-
ship had an-reed:to purchase. The case was tried
before Lord' Tenterden at the last sittings, and the
plaintiff was nonstsited, on the ground that the agree-
ment on which the action was brought had not been
drawn up on a proper stamp..
On u former day the Attorney-General had ob-
tained a rule to show cause why the verdict for thC
defendant should -not be set Mid; and a new trial
granted.
The case came on for argument this day, and it
appeared from the statements on both sides, that on
the trial the nonsult had been obtained by a law-
stationer, who was a witness kir the defence, sttmar-
ing that the number of folios contained in the agre67
ment were snore than the stamp on the agreement
covered. Since the trial the folios had been counted,
and it
,turned out that the defendant, in order to
make out that the folios were more in number than

the stamp on the agreement could legally cover, had
converted all the figures into words, and had unne-
cessarily interpolated no less than 200 " ands" into

it. Whenever it was requisite to enumerate so
many acres, roods, perches, &c., they had always
been enumerated as so many acres and so many
roods, and so many perches, &c. &c.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving that the
rule. be made absolute, felt himself bound to state
that Mr. Robins was only the nominal defendant in
this action, and that he had no interest whatever in
the result of the present suit. The money in ques-
tion had long since been paid over to the vender's
attorney. In conclusion, he moved that his rule
should be made absolute with costs.—Rule made
absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HANCOCK V. HODSON AND OTHERS.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover the
value of several Cornish mines, which they had sold
to the defendants, who are the directors of the Goo-
nearl _Mining Company. The case came on for
trial at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Gaselee, but
before the facts were investigated, an objection was
taken by the defendant .to the admissibility in evi-
dence of the deed by which the mines were con-
veyed to them, on the ground that it contained a
greater number of words than the stamp on-which
it was drawn would allow. The words having been
counted, and found to exceed the prescribed number
by 44, the plaintiff was nonsuited.
On a former day in this term, Me. Sergeant Wilde
obtained a rule to show cause why that nonsuit
should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, on

the ground of surprise at the objection Which had
caused the nousuit, the defendants' attornies having
prepared the deed.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE,
and Mr. Sergeant JONES, now appeared to show
cause against the rule.
The COURT having heard the argument, were of
opinion that the rule should be made absolute, upon
payment of costs.—Rule made absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 20.
BLOXAM V. TURTON, HART.

This was a demurrer to a bill filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant, Sir Thomas Turton, Bart.,
for the discovery of evidence in aid of an action in-
stituted under . the following circumstances :—The
bill charged that the defendant was a director of a
Joint-stock Company, formed for the purpose of
trading to Egypt; and that after A certain number of
shares had been issued by them, the defendant was
present as Chairman of a Meeting of the Com-
pany, at which -a resolution was adopted, by
which it was agreed, that as the object of
the formation of the Company had failed, it should be
dissolved. By the, terms of the deed, in order to
indemnify the public against any supposed injury
which they might sustain by the purchase of shares
of a,company which might be put an end to at any
time by the directors, it was provided that the de-
posits made on such shares should be put into the
bank for the formation of a fund to buy up all the
shares which should be then in the market, in the
event of the directors deciding on the diiJolution of
the company. If that fund should prove insuffi-
cient, then the directors were to contribute from
their own private funds to make up the deficiency;
but on no account were they to bring shares into
the market after the dissolution of the company
had taken place. The bill further charged, that the
defendant, after having presided as Chairman at
the meeting at which the dissolution was agreed
upon, employed a person named Joseph to dispose
of 25 shares of his, which he sold to the plaintiff,
who afterwards brought his action for money had
and received by the defendant to his use, for the re-
covery of 175/., the sum paid upon those 25 shares.
But not being provided with sufficient legal proof
of the above facts, the plaintiff filed this bill for the
discovery of evidence, to which the defendant de-
murred. _ _

Messrs. FONBLANQUE and BEAMES, in support of
the demurrer, contended that the bill could not be
sustained, insomuch as it charged the defendant with
conduct which, if lie had been guilty of it, would
subject him to a criminal prosecution, and therefore
he was not bound to furnish evidence in support of
such charges.
Messrs. TINNED and BRODRICK, in support of the
bill, argued that the facts charged, although they
amounted, to what was called a civil fraud, did not
constitute a criminal fraud. The Learned Counsel
besought the Court not to exclude the plaintiff from
the only means by which he was enabled to proceed
against the defendant, and thus enable the latter to
pocket the fruits of his civil fraud. After
Mr. FONBLANQUE had been heard in reply,
The COURT stated that they would take time to
consider the case.