The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-14 00:00:00

N THE MATTER OF POTTINGER, A BANKRUPT.

Mr. BORNE stated, that in this Brighton matter,
thirty or forty new affidavits had been filed, which
made it impossible for the briefs to be gat ready by
to-morrow, the day appointed for the hearing, there-
fore he hoped it might be permitted to stand for
Thursday. .

Mr. MosTAGuE did not oppose the application ;
on the contlary, he was of opinion that it would be
better to have it fixed for Saturday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was probable
that on Thursday there would he a Recorder's Re-
port, and that in such case he should not
Should he be in Court on Thursday, it might be
brought on then; if otherwise, on Saturday.

COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE-CONST V. HARRIS.

Mr. LOWSDES stated, that a short time ago, on

the motion of Mr. Biekersteth, the Court had ordered
an application to be made to-day in this case, having
for its object to disallow from the Receiver's ac-
counts the salary which had been kept back by him
as Treasurer, and as allowed by the Master. The
Solicitor who then instructed Mr. Biekersteth, had
since written a note, saying he did not now wish the
application to be forwarded out of the general
paper; but the order of advancement having been
once made, he (Mr. Lowndes) submitted that the
applicant ought .to be held to it, especially as the
other side were ready, because the effect of suspending
the application would be to prevent his Lordship de-
livering his judgment on-the case that had already

been argued.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was not of this opinion.
He saw no objection to the application being allowed
to fall back into the general paper, as he should take
care that should not delay him in disposing as early
as possible of the case now before him, except, in-
deed, it might be with respect to the one item—the
Treasurer's salary.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
BROOKIHAN V. ROTIISCIIILD.
Mr. KNIGHT understood that it was the intention
of his Honour to give judgment in this case to-
morrow. It would be a great convenience to Mr.
Rothschild's solicitor, whose professional duties
would require his attendance elsewhere on that day,
if the Court would postpone giving its judgment till
Thursday, if not inconvenient to his Honour.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, if it would
tender Mr. Knight any service he should be most
happy to comply with his request. It would be
a matter of no inconvenience to him to postpone his
judgment for a day.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on the part. of Mr.
Brookman, could see no objection to this.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR then ordered the case to
stand peremptorily for judgment on Thursday, and
trusted Mr. Knight would take care the parties on
the other side knew of the intention of the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
LIBEL.-lIUMPIIRIES V. MILLAR.

Mr. BROUGHAM (with whom were Mr. Pollock
and Mr. Kelly) stated to the Jury that the plaintiff
was a most respectable wine-merchant, living
at No.• 9, Water-lane, in the City, and the de-
fendant Secretary of a Society who published an
annual list, purporting to be a list of the " Society
for the Protection of Trade," but sometimes
called a " List for the Suppression of Swindling."
The libel which he had to complain of was that
of the plaintiff's name being inserted in that list.
The cause annexed to his name in that list was
" no account," which, he believed, was intended to
convey the imputation of having drawn upon a
banker without having an account with him.
The libel, which was in the 12th List, 182 S, was
then put in, and several witnesses were called to
prove the injury the plaintiff suffered. They were
principally persons who had been Members of the
Society, and many had withdrawn their names in
consequence of the plaintiff's and other persons'
names being inserted in the list.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defendant, said
that he should prove a full justification, inasmuch as
the plaintiff had accepted bills drawn by a notorious
swindler named Crawford, and payable at a banker's
where he had only a balance of a few shillings
remaining. He then called a member of the So-
ciety named Webber Eaton, who went on to prove a
justification, and was followed by several other wit-
nesses.—The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation,
found a verdict for the defendant.