The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY 'AVENING, JANUARY 26, 1855

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. THE PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY.

This matter came before the court in a special case.
The luestion which it waste decide was whether the regis-
trar of the society had properly enrolled two gentlemen,
named Murdock and Abrahams, who had been in busi-
ness as chemists before the society obtained their act of
incorporation. The question was argued at great length
last term, and the court this morning gave judgment,
pronouncing in favour of the registrar, who they held
had acted properly in the discharge of his duty.
The judgment in this case determines the positions of
several hundred gentlemen similarly circumstanced.

EXCHEQUER.
BOYLE V. WISE MAN.

The facts of this case will be familiar to the reader.
It was an action far libel arising out of a letter written
by Cardinal Wiseman to L'Universc and L' Alai de Reli-
gion, two Paris papers, and afterwards copied into the
Catholic Standard. The letter, it was allegs,l, reflected
most severely and unjustly upon the character of the
plaintiff, who is a Roman C ttholic priest ; but at the
trial, which took place at the last Croydon aks:zes, it
turned out that the Abbe Cunyers, who had charge of
the original letter, refused to produce it ; and the Abbe
being beyond the jurisdiction of the court, there was no
legal authority to compel him to produce it. It was
therefore proposed to put in secondary evidence of the
contents and authorship of the letter, but the Lord
Chief Baron, who tried the case, refused to receive it.
This secondary evidence failing, it was next proposed to
call the Cardinal himself; but this also the Chief Baron
refused, upon the recognised rule of law that a man
cannot criminate himself. At the trial it was contended
that it would be time enough to set up that objection
after the Cardinal had been sworn, and an improper
question put to him ; but the Chief Baron con-
tinued resolute in his determination not to let
the Cardinal be sworn ; and there being, conse-
quently, no sufficient evidence of the authorship or
contents of the letter, the plaintiff was non-suited.
This being the state of matters last term, Mr. James,
Q.C., moved for and obtained a rule, calling upon the
defendant to show cause why a new trial should not be
had, en the ground that the Lord Chief Baron was
wrong in rejecting the secondary evidence, and not al-
lowing the Cardinal to be sworn. The rule came on
for argument before the full Court on Tuesday, and Mr.
Serjeant Shee, Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Badderly
were beard at some length against it, while Mr. James,
Q.C., and Mr. Lush argued in support of the rule.
The Court gave judgment this morning, making the
rule absolute on both points.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Crowder.)
CORSICLLAS V. TURNER.--A QUIET-TO•RIDE MARE.
This was an action to recover the sum of 281., paid
by the plaintiff as purchase money for a mare, with
whom a warranty had been given.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Robinson were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Giffard for the
defendant.
The plaintiff in the case is a solicitor, living at
Wandsworth, and the defendant an innkeeper and
horse dealer at Kingston, and about the latter
end of October last plaintiff bought of de-
fendant a mare, which was warranted a quiet-to-
ride mare, and fit for a lady. As soon as they got it
hope, plaintiff put it into the hands of his groom, who
found that it was very tricky, and given to biting, cross-
ing the road, and finally, when checked, would come to
a dead standstill, but the moment she turned towards
home would return at the speed of an express

train. She had also a peculiar distaste to
facing a rising ground, and it would appear
that her character was well known to nearly all
the people in the neighbourhood. As soon as Mrs.
Corsellas tried to ride her she experienced the tricks
complained of. Mr. Corsellas, who it appeared was
not a very experienced horseman, tried the mare, and
she bolted with him. He then returned the mare to de-
fendant, after keeping it three weeks, and de-
fendant was to get plaintiff another one, but it
would seem did not do so for some time, and plaintiff
bought another one. The defendant went upon two
occasions to plaintiff's upon the mare, when she went
through all the bad habits complained of. Ultimately
the defendant offered to return 241., but plaintiff refus-
ing to accede to that, the mare was taken to plaintiff's
and there tied up and left. Plaintiff upon that sent it
to the pound, and from there it was sent to Smithfield
and sold for 141.

For the defence it was shown that the mare was all
that was requisite, and that the conduct complained of
was occasioned solely by the extreme incapability of the
plaintiff and his wife to rid. or Leafage a hor.e.
The case was proceeding when we went to press, and
will occupy the entire day.