The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

.-~ --

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEc. 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord ABINGER and a
Special Jury.)
DAVIES V. BROWN.

At the sitting of the Court this morning,
Mr. ERLE addressed the Jury for the defendant in
a very able and animated speech. He had no doubt he
had the honour of addressing gentlemen who had had
some experience in Courts of Justice ; if so, he would
ask them whether they had ever seen a more shameless
proceeding than the action then before them, or
attempted to be supported by more unblushing
and unscrupulous means, he would fearlessly ask them
if, in all their experience, they had ever seen a' case of
greater fraud supported by a greater crime. He would
not for a moment attempt to cast the slightest reflection
upon the evidence given by the respectable tradesmen
whom the Jury had seen in the box ; there was no ques-
tion of the character of the plaintiff, but there was
just as little doubt that they had been made his dupes.
He began first in a small way, kept up his payments until
he got into good credit, and then when it was conve-
nient for his purposes they became his dupes. There
was no donbt he had got their goods, but would the
Jury for a moment believe that they were disposed
of in a fair and regular mercantile way ? Who
had ever heard of Mr. Morris as a fur merchant,
or as a potatoe dealer, or as an importer of
butter? Did they not rather believe that all the
goods of these unfortunate gentlemen found their way
into the hands of a gang who were very unscrupulous
as to the manner of disposing of them, they never
having the slightest intention of paying for them. After
severely dissecting the evidence, especially that given
by Tomlinson, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and
Le Grange, he said the case presented to the Jury
was so tinged with fraud, that he anticipated the Jury
would be of opinion that the arrest was collusive—that
the whole was a plan got up for the purpose of defraud-
ing the Warden by a gross conspiracy, and that they
would at once find for his client.

Lord ABINGER summed up in favour of the de-
fendant, being of opinion that the whole had been a
plan concocted fraudulently for the purpose of fixing the
Warden.

The Jury immediately found a verdict for the de-
fendent.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dsc. 4.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice Ensums.)

HOULTON V. GODING.

This was an action brought to recover damages for
loss sustained by the plaintiff of the services of a young
woman, his sister-in-law, through an accident of the
following nature :—She was passing up Wych-street at
the time one of the Messrs. Goding's (the well
known brewers) drays was passing ; and by a collision
with a coal waggon, the dray was jerked on the pave-
ment, and the poor girl being knocked down, the heavy
wheel went over her ancle, and crushed her foot so
dreadfully, that immediate amputation was necessary,
and she was in the hospital for three months. Appli-
cation had been made to the defendants for some com-
pensation, but they referred plaintiff to their attorney.
Mr. Sergeant ANDIEWS and Mr. PETERSDORFF were
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD and Mr.
TOMLINSON for the defendants.

The plaintiff's witnesses spoke to the negligence of
the draymeu. They, on the other hand, swore posi-
tively, of course, that " it was not their fault."
The Learned JUDGE told the Jury that they must
only now consider the damage the plaintiff had sus-
tained by the loss of the girl's services for a few months,
and not the personal suffering of the girl, for which
she could hereafter bring a separate action.
The Jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages, 101.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

FRUITS OF DRUNKENNESS.—W m. Willey was yester-
day placed at the bar, remanded from Tuesday, charged
with assaultimg Mr. Stephen Lacy.
On Monday night Mr. Lacy was passing along
Smithfield, when the prisoner came up to him and
knocked him down without any provocation, and on his
getting up prisoner knocked him down a second time.
The prisoner was intoxicated.
The prisoner in his defence said he had stumbled
against defendant by accident, and he had been remanded
to produce witnesses to his character.
Yesterday, however, the witnesses were not forthcom-
ing, although he had written to them.
The prisoner stated that he was a coaehmaker, and
had been out of employment for two months,_. during
which time he had received 15s. a-week from his society,
and that he had just procured employment, which he
should lose if he were detained longer.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON said that he must remand
him until to-day, to produce those witnesses, and,
in the meantime directed inquiries to be made of his
master, and of the secretary of the society.