The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-16 00:00:00

included only those who were. Among the latter
was to be found the plaintiff. This item appeared
in - the statement, " Ryde, the Secretary, 12.5/."
This clearly put an end to the action; but the
Learned Sergeant could go farther, and show that
the salaries of the officers were not, according to the
original resolutions, to be paid at the rate above
stated, " if the profits of the Company were not
adequate thereto." There was, however, one ingenious
attempt made to get rid of this difficulty, for the
parties likely to be affected by it, well knowing the
meaning of the word " profits," had erased it and
substituted the significant word " funds." Thus,
as the Learned Sergeant contended, clearly shewing
the character of the entire transaction. _ _

Mr. Sergeant MEURYWEATHER then addressed
the Jury for the defendant Mr. Dunster, and
drew their attention to a letter written by
Mr. Wilks to the plaintiff. Wilks, after
expressing the great pleasure which he would
have in serving the plaintiff, says, " 'We shall
have the funds in our hands, and I will take care,
subicribe who may, that you shall be benefited."—
The Learned Sergeant, after commenting in very
strong terms on the nature of the transactions of the
Company, submitted that the whole was a fraud.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, for the plaintiff, argued that
the evidence only went to spew that the plaintiff
was a partner in June, 1826, and that his prior right
could not be defeated by his subsequent connexion
with the Company as a partner.
The Life Department Secretary was recalled, and
stated, that he wrote a letter to the plaintiff; pre-
viously to his taking his seat as Secretary, and in-
formed him that he must, before his appointment
took place, become a subscriber to the amount of 501.
The I:0HD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opiniOn, that
the plaintiff must be nonsuited if Mr. Sergeant
Wilde-proved, as he expressed his ability to do; that
the plaintiff was a partner.
The documents alluded to, the Learned Ser-
geant's speech, were then put in and read, 'Von'
which his Lordship directed a 21021n/it.

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

LONDON ADJOURNED SITTINOS, BEFORE LORD TENTERDEN7

CHIEF JUSTICE.
SPECIAL JURIES FOR TO-MORROW.
Meaburn v. Westmorland Mann v. Owen
Same v. Leathly Hunter v. Allen
Haynes v. Pulley Hogan v. Wilkinson
Wright v. Dawson Yeates v. Carnsew.

Hawley v. Gates
Dutton v. Burnett
Windeler v. same
Goldem id t v. same
Blyth v. Walton

Same v. Melville
Solarte v. Miles
Stiebel v. Goldsmidt

Sow ter v. Longslow
flay v. Fletcher

FRIDAY,

Hermano v. Kinnaird
Venningo v. Wise
Chabie v. Hicks

Beaumont v. Cooper
Newton v. Mickel(

SATURDA
Garcia V. Prendergros
Same v. same
Hayden v. Maton
Back v. cox
Stocks v. Kinder
The King v. Rider

, OCT. 18.
Jackson v. Denman
Parkin v. Larkin
Beaumont v. Thomas
Brooks v. Cooper
Oliviera v. Taylor
Chisbum v. Needham
Watts v. Meares
Vice v. Austwick
OCT. 19.
Fromont v. Reilly
Hunter v. Heylin
Woods v. Cartwright
Cowit v. Harris
Bell v. Marquis of London-
derry

Whyatt v. Mackintosh
Hunter v. Connor

-2 OCT. 20.
'Lancashire v. Parnell
The King v. Shackell
Phillips v. Joseph,
Corn v. Watson
Jackson v. Livingston

Gladstones v. Rolfe
Smith v. Mills

MONDAY, OCT. 22.
'Oldfield v. Mitchell
Buttenham v. Perrin

Carter v. Maitland
Wilson v. Pennington

Oliviera v. Naylor
Tarbutt v. Smiler

Dove v. Baynes
Elias v. Varnham.

OCT. 23.
Fairlie v. Denton
Beatson v. Royal Exch. Co.
Wilson v. Fearns
Same V. Gates.
T, orT. 24.
Milne v. Roberts
Witherington v. ditto
Sharp v. Wanless
Samer v. Tarbutt
Sowter v. Dunstan

, OCT. 25.
Chatfield v. Robertson
Drew v. Bird
Roxvden v. Layton
Ellis v. Whitelock.

El SATURDAY, OCT. 21,
former days.