The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—Nov. 7.
MOUSLEY V. CARP.
This was an appeal from an order of the Master of the
Rolls on exceptions to the Master's report.
His LORDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Wigram and Mr.
Booth in support of the appeal, said there was no evidence
that could warrant further inquiry, and dismissed the appeal
with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 7.
UTIIEK V. CHICHESTER.

Mr. PLATT applied for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict given for the defendant should not be set aside, and a
new trial granted. This was an action upon a bill of ex-
change, being one of a set of bills drawn or accepted by
the defendant in common with a young gentleman named
Rich, both of them at that time being officers of a regiment
quartered at Portsmouth. The cause was tried before
Lord Denman at the sittings at Westminster, when the
defence set up was, that the plaintiff had obtained posses-
sion of these bills through a man named Hunter, to whom
he had not given any valuable consider.ition for them. The
jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the Learned
Counsel now moved to set aside the verdict and have a new

BAIL COURT. •
11ACI`HAIL V. CHARLES c.4..VErip:snowNlNG,
Mr-KNOWLES stated that the pinintiff in this case was
a jeweller, residing in WaterloOLplaCe,; : The defendant was
an attorney, and very fond of deccrating,his porson with
expensive articles of jewellery.:::The, present action was
brought to recover a balance of an account, of rings, watch•
guards, and other articles, furnished by plaintiff to the deg
fondant. There was certainly among the !tents of the plain•
tiff's bill a very curious one, and which was not often fatted
in a jeweller's account. It was this—for a dog of the real
King Charles's breed, twenty-five guineas. (Laughter.
That certainly might be considered a curious article 111 k
jeweller's bill, but the fact was the plaintiff ha 4 one of
those animals to dispose of, and the defendant Was vet/
eager to purchase it.
William ,Tebb wag savant to the plair.tiff. Ha iratied
the sale and delivery of the artielfs P-anted in the plaintiff's
;lemma, A. massive gold Ettir.echain richly chased, 20
guineas ; twenty coat butt",bs, beautifully chased, 51. I srlx
waLtcoat buttons, 1/. les. ; a gold-eye-glass, 2/. We.; am
elegantly chased dog's collar, of the richest workmanship,
41. 10s. ; Fanny, a beautiful dog of the' eal King Charles's
breed, 2.5 guineas, and several other articles, amounting
altogether to 109/. Considerable amusement was excited
by the description plaintiff give of his own articles in his
account. Every article was of the " most exquisite work-
manship;", beautiful manufacture," " elegant pattern," &c.
Mr. F2.:owLes—Do you consider the dog was worth
twenty-five guineas ?
Witness—Oh dear, yes, Sir ; she had such beautiful
long ears. Why, Sir, we have 'ern as high as one hundred
guineas ; some as low as eighty. We sold one only last
week for forty guineas, and the lady who bought it was
quite pleased with her bargain, and it was a beautiful crea-
ture for the,money, I assure you.--(Loud laughter.)
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—YOU really find people who
will pay you those prices?
Witness—Oh, yes. Why the defendant wanted this dog
as a present to a lady, and he ordered a collar to be made
for it, to set it off, as he said, to the best advantage. The
collar cost 4/. 10s. It's .charged in the bill.—(Laughter.)
__Thibliimpplifftifisoit consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 791., being the whole amount
claimed.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.--PINCELOUP V. HUBERT.
Mr. PLATT stated the plaintiff's case. The action was
brought to recover damages for false imprisonment. The
plaintiff was a foreman in thq service of the defendant, wbo
kept a fashionable shop in Regent-street for the sale of shoes
of French manufacture. Both plaintiff and defendant were
foreigners. On the 17th of July defendant gave the plain-
tiff into the custody of a policeman on a charge of having
stolen two lasts, his property, upon which charge plaintiff
was taken to a station-house at Marylebone, where after
being detained some time the charge against him was
abandoned. lie brought the present action to recover da-
mages for the injury he had sustained by the plaintiff's con-
duct towards him.—The Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff--llamages

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nor. 7.
SPURFIN V. KNOT AND REEVE.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS moved for a rule to show cause
-why a new trial should not be granted in this case, on the
ground that the damagi's were excessive. It was an ac.
tion for assault, tried before. Mr. Justice Bosanquet, at
Bury. St. 111munds, when a verdict was found for thy,
plaintiff, with 1001. damages. The defendant Knot wa
in possession of a dwelling-house, in which the plaintiff re
mained against his consent, and the assault complained of
was committed in removing him.
The COURT said that they would consult Mr. Justice
Bosanquet before giving their decision as to the rule.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nor. 7.
PERRY V. PERRY.
This is a suit for divorce, by reason of adultery, pro-
moted by Mr. William Perry against Eliza Perry, his wife.
The libel, pleading among other facts that the marriage of
the patties was solemnised on the I.2th of August, 1830, in
the chapel of the British Embassy, at Florence, was this
day offered for admission.
The Learned JuDGli eauld with safety generally admit
the allegation.