The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-10 00:00:00

SELECT ARTICLES Prepared and Sold
By Messrs. BUTLER, Chemists,
Cheapside, Corner of St. Paul's, London; 54, Sackville -
street, Dublin ; and 73, Princes-street, Edinburgh.
FLUID EXTRACT of SARSAPARILLA, for making
the Decoctions, and particularly suggested to Surgeons and
Physicians, for its portable convenience and economy. The
Diseases in which it has proved most beneficial are those of
the Skin, such as Scorbutic .Aff ctions, Eruptive Diseases,
Secondary Symptoms, &c., arising from a diseased state of
the System at large.
PURE MAGNESIA, superior to any Article of the
kind heretofore offered to the Public, tieing perfectly free
from taste.

PURE EPSOM SALTS, in large Chrystals, thereby
avoiding the resemblance to Oxalic Acid.

CITRATED KALI, a preparation for making Saline
Draughts, recommended by the Profession for its conveni-
ence, and being more certain in its operation than those
prepared with Lemon, &c.
CARDIAC TINCTURE of TURKEY RHUBARB,
a warm and pleasant Laxative, adaptt.,l to Gouty Constitu-
firm,

STOMACHIC BITTER TINCTURE, a very agree-
ab]e Tonic, recommended in Indigestion, debility of the
Stomach, &c.

VEGETABLE TOOTH POWDER and ASTRIN-
GENT TINCTURE, for rreerving and beautifying the
Teeth and Gums.

ANTACID LOZENGES of QUININE, for relieving
Heartburn, Flatulence, Indigestion, and giving tone to the
Stomach, they are also extremely serviceable to Gouty, and
Dyspeptic Persons.
ACIDULATED LOZENGES of CAYENNE, for
habitual Sore Throats, Relaxation of the Uvula, Hoarse-
ness, &e., also a refreshing stimulus in Fatigue, Field
Sports, &c.
STOMACHIC CANDY, composed of Rhubarb, Gin-
ger, &c., an excellent and agreeable remedy for all coin_
plaints of the Stomach.

The above Preparations when Genuine, will have
the Name and address of Massus. BUTLER, attached to
them.

DISTRESSING ACCIDENT.---Last night,
about half-past seven o'clock, as some workmen of Mr.
Bute, cabinet-maker, were rolling a large log of mahogany,
weighing upwards of two tens, down the Old Post-office-
close, High-street, to the workshop, br some accident the
g
tackling by which it was held
ave way at the narrowest
part of the close, which was
only three or four inches
wider than the log itself. At this moment, one of the
men who were in front fell down, and the heavy mass
which they were moving on rollers, being impelled for-
ward by its weight, went over his body, which was so
dreadfully crushed, that he Only uttered a shriek and
almost instantly expired. The log was of such a size, and
there was such a aarrow space in the close, that it was
forty minutes before the body could be extricated. We
understand that the name of the workman is John Mac-
pherson, about 34 years of age, and he has left a widow
and three children to lament his untimely
burgh Evening Courant.

This case, which has been for some time before the pub-
lic, and excited no inconsiderable degree of interest, not
only on account of its importance, but on account of the
difference of opinion which existed respecting it in West-
minster Hall, has at length received a final decision.
The circumstances attending it are as follows :.--Lord
Sondes being the patron of the rectory of Kettering, in the
county of Northampton, presented the Rev. Mr. Fletcher
(the appellant), to that living, some years ago, on the
latter entering into a bond in the penalty of 12,0001. to
resign' the said rectory, upon request, when any of the
younger brothers of Lord Sondes should be capable of taking
an Ecclesiastical Benefice. In the year 1820, the Ho-
nourable Henry Watson, one of his Lordship's brothers,
being in the condition above mentioned, Lord Sondes re-
quested of the appellant to resign the rectory, that he might
present his brother thereto, but Mr. Fletcher refused
to comply, whereupon, Lord Sondes commenced an
action in debt on the bond. The appellant suffered
judgment to go against him by default, and a writ
of inquiry was executed before the Chief Justice and a
special Jury, who astessed• the damages at 10,0001. Judgg_
ment was signed, upon which the appellant brought a writ
of Error, in the Exchequer Chamber, where the judgment
was affirmed, against which decision an appeal was lodged
in the House of Lords. Council having been heard on
both sides, their Lordships directed that it should be sub-
mitted for the opinion of the twelve Judges, who after
twelve months' deliberation, delivered their opinions seriatim
(with the exception of Mr. Justice Bailey and Mr. Justice
Littledale, who could not make up their minds on the sub-
ject,) in the House of Lords, in the last Session, seven of
them being opposed to the judgment below, and three of
them (Chief Justice Best, Mr. Justice Guelee, and Mr.
Justice Burrough) being in favour of it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR having gone through all the,
circumstances of the case, as above detailed, observed,
that the appellant, on bringing the case into the Court
of Exchequer Chamber, had set forth the errors, and the
respondent pleaded in null° eat erratum. The Court
perceiving that there were none of these errors on record,
which could warrant them to enter into the merits of the
case, affirm the judgment, without hearing the arguments
of Counsel. The question now for the consideration of their
Lordships was, whether this was a bond on which
the parties were entitled to sue ; and in coming
to a conclusion on this subject their Lordships should con-
sider themselves as Judges in a Court of Justice, and his
(the Lord Chancellor's) duty was not to state the case on
any other grounds than that which was warranted by law. ,1
His Lordship had not the slightest hesitation in saying,
that before the decision given in the case of the Bishop of
London against Ffysche, this bond would be held legal, but
he was of opinion that it came within the same principle
which governed that decision. It was argued by Counsel
at the bar that this bond could not be considered
simoniacal, as the condition of the resignation was the
presentation of a particular person, and that the obligee
might see that the Bishop should take care that on his resig-
nation no other person should be presented but the Rer.
Henry Watson, the brother of Lord Sondes. Now, if the
resignation were conditional, it would cease to be a resig-
nation at all, and after an incumbent had resigned, he (the
Lord Chancellor) would ask any man conversant in
law or equity, was there any law upon earth which
could compel a patron to present any particular person?
It had already been decided in several instances, that a re-
signation, to be good, must be pura et absque conditione,
otherwise the law said it was no resignation, or it was
void. True it was that two or three eminent and distin-
guished leading characters were adverse to the decision in the
case of-the Bishop of London,find Firyiche, among whom was
Lord Kenyon, to whose opinion in legal matters he ;Aid
the highest respect, and it was consequently urged, that
that decision should govern no other case except that
which was strictly in point, but his Lordship thought
that there was nothing in this case which should take it
out of the rule by which that decision was governed.
The Bishop of London and Ffysche was a bond of general
resignation,and if the incumbent resigned in this case,
could not the patron present whom he pleased ; and how
then did it differ from a bond of general resignation? It
had been urged that if this bond should be judged simo-
niacal, the incumbent and the patron would be subject to
heavy penalties, but it was their Lordship's business not to
attend to any thing but to the subject proposed for
their consideration, how could they with propriety pro-
nounce against the law to avoid the conseqences of an ille-
gal act. When his Lordship looked to the cases in the
books which were advanced in support of this judg-
ment, he should say they were not Well considered.—
One of them said, that a bond of resignation might
be made in favour of a brother ; another said in favour of
a cousin or a near relation. But his Lordship would ask
what had the condition or relationship of the person in
whose favour the bond was made to do with the question?
that ought to be left out of consideration. Could a patron
take a bond in favour of himself? If not, he could not
make it in favour of any man on account of relation-
ship, for no man is more nearly related to a patron
than himself ; and, if he could make such a bond, it would
in construction of law be the same as a general bond of re-
signation, for it was evident he could present whom he
pleased after; but, again, it was said, that it could not be held
simoniacal, unless it appeared that some benefit could be de-
rived from it; might not such a bond be made covertly in con-
sideration of money in this manner ; when the time for re-
signation arrived, the patron might say to the clergyman,
if you pay me a certain sum of money, " I will allow you
to hold your living longer ;" could not such a thing be easily
effected ? His Lordship had no doubt but that this deci-
sion would come by surprise, and bear harshly on many
patrons and clergymen, but he was not one of those who
would hesitate to indemnify those who had hitherto com-
mitted themselves by such bonds, whether patrons or incum-
bents, provided that were done without touching on the ge-
neral principles of the Ecclesiastical laws of the country,
some of which it should be admitted were too severe. On the
grounds before mentioned, his Lordship did not see how
he could do otherwise than adjudge this a simoniaoal contract;
now, after the most profound consideration, he would move
their Lordships that the judgment in the Court below be
reversed.

The Archbishop Of CANTERBURY entirely concurred
in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, which was agreeable
to that of the majority of the Judges ut he had to implore
their Lordships' attention to this circumstance, that a large
number, both of patrons and incumbents, had exposed
themselves to severe penalties. But his Grace trusted,
that, however erroneously, they had thus committed them-
selves, that House would afford them protection. A patron
was liable to a penalty of double the value of the living,
and the forfeiture of the patronage for that time, and
the incumbent was liable to double the value of the living,
and to he disqualified from holding it. Such were the se-
vere penalties they were innocently exposed to if not pro-
tected by that House. He held in his hand a Bill
containing such restrictions as would protect bonds of this
nature heretofore made, and exempt the parties from the
penalties above alluded to, with their Lordships' permission
he would move that it should be now read, pro forma, and
on the second reading he would explain its provisions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question, and the Bill
was accordingly read a first time.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aram 9.
It was fully expected that the Lord Chancellor would
have sat to-day in his Court at Lincoln's-inn Hall, as be
promised on Saturday to do ; but at half-past nine o'clock
a message arrived from him, stating that he had found it
impossible to sit to-day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 9.
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.
The Vrcx-CHANCELLOR, on coining into Court this
morning, intimated that he would on Thursday next give
judgment in Harris v. Kcmble, the particulars of which
were exclusively stated in our Paper.

A very fine shoal of millet was enclosed last
week at Hope Cove, and such was the eagerness of the fish
to escape from tho nets, that several hundred weight jump-
ed ashore, and were taken alive. Some of them weighed
from two to six pounds each.--Plymouth Journal.

On Saturday last, some melancholy thief broke
into the premises of Mr. David Haddon, in Aqueduct-
street, and stele a coffin, that was partly made, and wood
enough to complete it....., anchater Paper.