The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-18 00:00:00

1 detective crops in succession. nut be this as
I it may, we can have no doubt that the emer-
gency of a defective crop, or of several defective
crops in successiofi, is better provided for by the
present than it could be by any other system,
unless it be perhaps that of absolute free trade.
The reserve fund of subsistence for the people
of England will be collected in the bonding
warehouses, and in the foreign ports with which
the corn trade of England is carried on ; and
it will inevitably be thus collected to an amount
proportionate to the degree in which the stock
held by British farmers is understood to be de-
ficient. If foreign corn is not to be altogether
prohibited on the one hand, or admitted with-
out restriction on the other, we must resort to
some intermediate system, and there can be no
intermediate system but what gives the British
farmer a free occupancy of the market. It is
sufficiently obvious that there may be occa-
sions—and we think the farmers of England
have judged rightly in considering the last
season as one of them—in which they cannot
avail themselves to the utmost of the advantage
of this pre-occupancy of the market unless by
getting rid of a larger proportion than usual of
their stocks.—Morning Post.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 17.
TRIIII.ESTON V. TRIMLESTON.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court
this morning, gave judgment in this case, by refusing
the application to have the money paid out of Court.

IN RE POTTINGER, A BANKRUPT.

Mr. ROSE and Mr. CAMPBELL were heard agains
this petition.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it appeared to him
clear from the affidavits on both sides, that the
Commissioners in charging travelling expences, and
in taking fees for adjournments on the same day,
had infringed the Act of Parliament. He had
thererefore no room to decide otherwise than that
a commission must be directed to fresh Commis-
sioners: at the same time he saw no reason to im-
pute any corrupt motives to the Commissioners for
what they had done.

ROLLS COURT, Jul.: 17.
BARNHAM V. MUNN.

The following are the circumstances which gave
rise to this suit :—ln 1815 the defendant, Mrs.
Munn (then Mrs. Adams) being engaged in a
Chancery suit, which has since terminated in her
favour, and not having the means to carry it on,.ap-
plied to the plaintiff for a loan of 5001. for the pur-
pose of relieving her from some pecuniary difficulties,
and to enable her to prosecwe her claim. Mr.
Barnham declined acceding to her request in the
first instance, and stated that he could not cornmacd
the money except by disposing of a sum • of 6004
Five per Cent. Navy Annuities, which, the stock
being then below par, his broker bad recommended
him not to sell. Eventually, however, at the earnest
solicitation of the defendant, Barnham consented to
sell out the stock, and let her have the produce.
He did so; the stock was disposed of for 522/., as
appeared from the broker's note, and the money
handed to the defendant. In order to secure the
plaintiff, a bond was passed to him by Mrs. Adams,
who therein agreed to pay interest for the loan, and
replace the stock by a similar amount in Navy Five
per Cents., when required. She also made a will,
in which the replacing of the stock was provided for,
and under this will, Barnham, for Lis further seem ity,
was appointed executor. Both instruments were
drawn up by a wax-chandler, named Pearce, reside,
ing in Holborn, who was -a mutual friend of the

parties, and was employed in the matter with a
view to save law expellees. By a blunder of Pearce
in preparing the bond, the alternative was left to
the defendant, to pay 5224, the sum for which the
stock had been soli), or to replace it by the same
amount in New Five per Cent Annuities.. .It
appeared that the interest which would have ac-
crued from a sum of 6001. if invested in Navy Five
per Cents, was regularly paid by the defendant to
Barnham for the space of three years. At the ex-
piration of that period the defendant having succeed-
ed in her Chancery suit, and becoming possessed of
proper►y amounting to 20,0001. in money, and
1,100/. a-year, gave the plaintiff-notice of her inten-

tion to pay off-the. bonil. Being informed by bee
Solicitors that in consequence of the wording of the
instrument, she was entitled to her option of replac-
ing the stock or discharging her obligation by pay-
ing 522/., and finding that Navy Five per Cents.
had risen considerably in value since the period of
the loan, Mrs. Adams took advantage of these cir-
cumstances, and tendered the plaintiff 5221. in dis-
charge of the bond. Dunham at first refused to ac-
cept this offer, but (as was_ stated by his Counsel)
being pressed by his necessities, he
.afterwards took
the money from Mrs. Adams's solicitor, to whom he
delivered up the bond, at the same time loudly com-
plaining of the injustice done him by the defendant
in declining to replace the stork which he had ths•
posed of for her accommodation. The solicitor told
the plaintiff he was only authorized to pay the money
in full satisfaction of the bond, and Barnhain replied,
that he should adopt 'every means to obtain redress
and compel the defendant to replace the stock.
This took place in 1818. The present bill was filed
for the purpose of compelling the defendant to pay
to the plaintiff a sum of 1301., the difference between
5221. and the value of 600/. Navy Five per Cents.
on the day when the bond was delivered up.
The MASTER of the BOLLS—I am of opinion that
the bill must be dismissed; but I will not give the
defendant costs. This is a very unjust transaction,
but the Court cannot enter into the motives of par-
ties under all the circumstances and at this distance
of time. A person must not deliver up his security,
accepting a payment, and then ask for redress, ex-
cept the other party at the time of payment admits
that it is open to him to seek a further remedy. I
am sorry that Mrs. Munn, has so misconducted her-
self, but the Court must proceed: on legal principles.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 17.
MAYHEW v. MORTIMER.
tbis case which was left unfinished yesterday
when we went to press, the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.
DUGDALE AND OTHERS V. SANDS AND OTHERS.
This was an action by the assignees of Messrs.
Thomas Fearn and Co., who were formerly dealers
in cotton goods at Manchester, against Messrs.
Sands and Co., commission agents at Liverpool and
New York, to recover from them a large sum of
money, which it was alleged they had improperly
paid over to Messrs. Butterworth and Brooks, under
an order signed by the bankrupts, Messrs. Fearn
and Co. _

After some evidence had been given, it was
agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plain-
tiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court above upon
a special ease as to the plaintiffs' right to recover ?
Verdict accordingly.
ROGERS V. CROSSITy.
This was an action by a chyrnist and druggist
against Captain Crosby, to recover the price of a
battles and other articles fur-
,q,ilityineldtooflsli mmelliing
in March, 1828. The fact of the
articles having been applied to the defendant was not
disputed, and the only question was, whether there
:tad been an actual purchase by the defendant ?
Plaintiff nonsuited.
THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF MIDDLESEX.
This was an indictment for the non-repair of a
bridge, called Longford or Moor-bridge, in the
parish of Harmondsworth, Middlesex.—Verdict for
the defendants.

ARCHES COURT, JULY 17.
HAMERTON V. lIA3IERTON.
This calm, which had been appealed to the High
Court of Delegates (against a decision of the Judge
of this Court, rescinding the conclusion of the cause