The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-26 00:00:00

to
plaintiffs hail merely used that which WAS fAYOUrabta
his case only.
tr Mr. PEPYS was addressing the Coiirt on the part of did;
defendants when we left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Mr. RICHARDS applied for a rule to show cause wbi
the assignees of an insolvent debtor should net give seol-
rity for costs, in an action brought by the insolvent before
he rendered to prison.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN inquired whether the action wag
now carried on for the benefit of the insolvent's creilitori•
Mr. Ricit.s.u.ns said it was; and if the defendant, for
whom he appeared, should succeed in the action, without
he got security for his costs, he would have no legal means
of obtaining them. The Insolvent Debtors' Act coirtaiii-
ed a clause exempting assignees from liability to ani
costs in an action commenced by an insolvent previous
to his taking the benefit of the Insolvents Act.
Mr. Baron GARROW said it was a novel application.
He however thought the rule ought to be granted.--•
Rule to show cause granted.

EDWARDS, GENT. V. DROWN, ESQ.
This case, which is an application for a new trial, god
which occupied the Court nearly the whole of yesterdAY,
was resumed this morning.
After hearing the arguments of Mr. WILLIAMS ata
Mr. TAUNTON, the Court refused the rule.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
The Loan CIIIEF BARON sat in Equity this morning
in the Exchequer Chamber. His Lordship was occupied
in hearing pleas and demurrers of no general interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Mr. Justice BAILEY was occupied till half-past elefer!.•
o'clock, in hearing undefendkd nisi prius cases, none of
which were of any public interest.

- -
PRIVATE MADHOUSES.-THE JUNG V. JAMES SHARPLY'
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the judgment of the
Court upon this defendant, who had been prosecuted by
the Commissioners under the Act for the Protection of
Lunatics, and for the prevention of malice in the arrest of
persons under the pretence of their being insane. That
Act prohibited any person from keeping a Lunatic Asylum
without a licence under the sanction of the Magistrates, or
receiving lunatics into their care without a certificate of
their insanity, signed by two surgeons. The defendant 1,0
offended under one of the clauses of that Act, and tl'e
Commissioners felt bound to prosecute, in order to 1010
the provisions of the Act more public. They did
not
think that under the circumstances the defendant bad Wall
fully offended, and thought the justice of the case wooll
be fully answered in fining the defendant in the sum of
40e. or some suck punishment.
Mr. Justice BAILEY ordered him to enter into his cull
recognizance§ for 21. to appear and receive judgment who'
called on.

FAIR V. ELVHINSTONE.
Mr. DENMAN showed cause against a rule obtained
hY
the Attorney-General, calling for a writ in the nature of I
rnaadamus, directed to the Supreme Court at BornbeYo
authorising them to examine certain witnesses in the cao
of the defendant, the Governor of Bombay, whom the
plaintiff charged with having improperly imprisoned
and sent him to England, not direct from the p'atte wherl
he was taken, hut in a circuitous route by Penangart"
Singapore, so that he was on board 12 months.
The Court ordered the rule to be made absolute, and
the plaintiff to be allowed to examine any witnesses NY"
were now going abroad by interrogatory.

LIBEL.-THE KING V. HATFIELD.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom wailjtibre:
KELLY) appeared to show cause against a rule obtairk-gat:.
Mr. Adams for a criminal information against Mt
.:;-„z
field, the editor of the Huntingdon Gazette, fur imputing
to Mr. Mauls, the town-clerk of the corporation of liuneta
ingdon, the crime of having packed a jury, and alter
an indictment with intent to procure an unjust verdict.
It appeared that a dispute' existed between the Burgess
and the Corporation of Huntingdon, as to who possesoe"
the right of atockage of a certain common. It appe4",
that the common used to be under the controul of alee;
Jury, but the corporation subsequently took the care and
right of atockage of the common into their own handsi.
The action was tried, which decided that the right °a
atockage remained in the Court Leet. A burgess mull'
Becket, having a right to turn cattle on the said commoo i
.
Cooper, a baker, nominally sold him a cow, which Wej
accordingly turned out, but it being observed that cool.
alone milked the cow, it was impounded. A servast 0
Cooper's broke the lock and took the cow away. He ,Vjg
dieted fur pound-breaking, and Mr. Mau!e, asolicitor,ba;
ing as town clerk, to prepare the indictment, laid ths,:: a
as belonging to Becket, and summoned Cooper, an "the
alleged other persons, who were interested in ignoring
bill. The hill was ignored. The Attornev-General contencle
that if ever there was a case in which comment oP°P
public officers ought to be allowed, it was the present.
Mr. KELLY followed on the same side.
Mr. ADAMS was heard at
great length, in defence of
Mr. Mauls, the town clerk, who, be alleged, had no know.
ledge of the cow being Cooper's, and in consequence laid
it as belonging to Becket.
Mr. ANDREWS followed, and
The COURT ordered the rule to be made absolute, se tli°
libel imputed clear and absolute guilt. It was no stoWe,r
to say that the defendant had ground of suspicion..-nu 4
made absolute.