The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGBNCIE.--Feb. 5.

!er first edition of ?feet

'r'~~„

(!,

)

TN(

Zit th.. t .Nl5l Pri.---Befora Lord Can' aud
Special Jury.)
COOKE AND ANOTHER V. WILDES.

This was an action fur libel in which the plaintiffs,
who are printers at Maidstone, sought to recover da-
mages to the amount of 5001. for an alleged libel by the
defendant, who is deputy clerk of the peace fur the
county of Kent.
The jury returned a verdict for 501.
Sir F. Thesiger asked for leave to move to enter a non-
suit ?
Lord Campbell—Oh, certainly.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
CLAYTON AND ANOTLIER V. JOB.

The plaintiffs in this case are advertising agents, in
the Strand, and the defendant is a wholesale stationer,
in Cannon-street, City. The action was brought to re-
cover a sum of money claimed by the plaintiffs against
the defendant as a provisional director of the General
Indemnity Insurance Company for advertising the pro-
spectus of that company in the daily newspapers.
Mr. Serjeant Byles, Mr. J. H. Hodgson, and Mr.
Josiah Rees, were counsel for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
.Athertoul •O Q.O aid Mr. H. James, for the defendant.

The pfaintiffproved that the defendant was present
at a meeting of the directors of the company on the 16th
of November, 1853, when the plaintiffs were appointed
advertising agents for the company, and also that he was
present at subsequent meetings, at which resolutions
were come to authorising plaintiffs to insert advertise-
ments on behalf of the company. On the other hand,
the defendant was called, and deposed that he had op-
posed, instead of sanctioning, the authority given to the
plaintiffs.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Da-
mages, 1881. 15s. lid.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
EVANS V. ROBINSON.-CRIM. CON.

This was an action for trim. con., tried before Mr.
Justice Crowder, at the last Liverpool assizes. In sup-
port
of the plaintiff's case three women were called, and
deposed to having witnessed the commission of the act
of adultery through a hole in the door, previously bored
by a gimlet given to one of them by a detective police-
man, engaged to watch Mrs. Evans and the defendant by
the plaintiff. The evidence was not contradicted, but
was rejected by the jury, who found a verdict for the
defendant. A rule was subsequently obtained to set
aside the verdict, on the ground of surprise, and that it
was against evidence.
Wr. Watson and Mr. Rew, in showing cause against
the rule, contended that the doubt entertained by the
jury as to the credibility of such evidence as was given
by the three women was not only rational, but well
founded, and that this being a quasi criminal charge,
the court could not without a violation of the established
rule send the case down to a second trial. There had
been no suggestion that the learned judge who had tried
the cause was dissatisfied with the verdict. The ques-
tion was simply one of credibility, and that was for the
jury alone.
Mr. Baron Martin said that Mr. Justice Crowder had
neither reported his assent to, or dissent from, the find-
ing of the jury.
Mr. Baron Alderson observed he had spoken to the
learned judge when the rule was moved tor, wken he
said "he saw no reason for disbelieving the witnesses,"
but as to the verdict he added he " was rather glad of
it than otherwise."

Mr. Watson thought that after such an expression on
the part of the learned judge it would be quite impos-
sible to send the case for a second trial.

Mr. Baron Parke—lf the case were one involving
merely a question of damages, we should not interfere;
but a very serious question is involved, for without a
verdict from the jury, the plaintiff could not apply for a
divorce to the House of Lords.

Mr. Watson said the evidence was quits incredible.
The family of the lady did not suspect anything
wrong, and her father countenanced her conduct by ap-
pearing at the trial as a witness for the defendant, who
was an old friend of the family, and had known the lady
from her birth.

Mr. Baron Parke—lf the defendant be guilty, that
fact may make his conduct worse. I will not give any
opinion on the facts, but I wish the case to be sent down
for reconsideration, being satisfied, from the report of
the learned judge, that the jury were greatly influenced
to give a verdict for the defendant from their strong dis-
approbation of the employment of a detective policeman
by a gentleman in such a case. The rule for a new trial
must be made absolute.

Mr. Watson—On the usual terms, my lord—payment
of costs ?

The Attorney-General (with whom was Mr. Knowles
and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins) in support of the rule, hoped
that proposition would not be acceded te.
The Court held that the rule should be made absolute
without costs. The new Procedure Act especially pro-
vided that in all cases of new trials being granted against
evidence the costs of the first trial should abide the
event, unless the court should otherwise order, and they
would not in this case do so.
Rule accordingly.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

GRAHAM AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF A BANICIMPT, V.

THE VAN DIEMEN'S LAND CO3IPANY.

This was an action to recover the value of certain
shares, to which the bankrupt had been entitled. The
defence was that he had forfeited the shares, and that
the plaintiffs had not claimed them within a reasonable
time. The jury at the trial found a verdict for the de-
fendants on the direction of the Lord Chief Baron that
there was not evidence to go to the jury. On that a writ
of error was brought. It appeared that at the time of
the bankruptcy the shares were worth nothing, but
when the assignees made their demand they were worth
191. a share.

Mr. Hogging argued the case for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Bramwell for the defendants.

The Court delivered judgment, holding that there
should be a venire de novo, as under the circumstances
reasonable time was a question for the jury.
Writ of error allowed.