The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-20 00:00:00


1,4111, REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, DEC. 19.

LEDGF.H V. MILLAR.

This wp% an action of assault. The parties are
connected together in trade, and having differed rei-
specting their accounts, they submitted • the adjtist!
molit io t triinds. This was not satisfactory, and a
third -iidividual,wris.selected to • make a final adjudi;
cation. At the last meeting ;before the =Ore nvh
parties attonded, and saluted each other with 'the
most-gross and indecent epithets... At last the de-
tendAni struck the, Ciaintiti, by giving him what he
atterylircs deborninen!d a start facer. The conse-
quence was, that the plaintiff got a black eye, and
was prevented from attending his business. The
disputeAvas a very silly one, and the conduct of the
parties with respect ,to the languag3 they used ex-
trernely disgraceful. Verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 201.
Four ,other causes were disposed of, 01 relating
to policies of inSurance. They involved no point of
mercantile importance, and ate not worth repotting.
The Court rose at two o'clock.

Lord ELLENBOROUG.H has intimated his intention
of sitting in the Christ Mas week, i❑ order to get
through the list of causes, and, consequently,-to pre-
vent his coming- into Court again before Hilary
Te

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. r 9.

LUPTON V. SIR THOMAS WHITE AND OTHERS.

This cause came on to be heard this day, upon
further instructions to the Master, under the fol-
lowing circumstances Plaintiff as the owner
of the soil and inheritance of a close, containing
about iota- acres of land, Called Little Inn, in the
County of Northumberland, in 1802 filed his bill
Ira- an Injunetion to prevent Sir Thomas.Wllite and
wider-tenants, Ns. ho'owned the Lead Mines, ad-
joining Little Inn, from working under his soil, and
for an account of the issues of that part of the
mine-they flak.: so worked, under his laud. The in-.
jun?-.ti yn was granted in the first instance, but upon
the Defendant's denying that the Plaintiff .was the
owner:of the soil and inheritance, and promising to
account, the injunction was dissolved, and an issue
direeled to try the title of the Plaintitf, to. the soil
in 'question, and a veer diet returned in his.favour.
The injunaion was again granted and again -dis-
solved upon SirThn3. White's under-tenants uncle,-
taking to the Court that they would render a just,
faithful,. and true account of the issues and profits be-
fore the master, who was directed to appropriate to
the Plaintiff' such part thereof as he should appear en-!
titled to. When, however, the parties went before
the Master, it appeared that they had, so .completely
mixt the property of all parties, by digging one
part of the mine, and filling up another, and had
made such erroneous returns of the amount of the
issues, that it was itnpossible for the Master to dis-
criminate the One from the other, so as to apportion
any specific part to the Plaintiff; and therefore, in
want of the necessary evidence, lie now sought the
further direction of the Court.
Ater hearing Sir SAMUEL Rom ILE\-- for the Plain-
tiff, and Sir Atuiutt PIGOT and. RIC:HA:WS, for
the Defendants,
The LORD CHANCELLOR having observed upon
all the leading features'of the case, adverted to the
case of the Jew add the diatn'ond ring. The ring
was,found by a boy, who disposed .of a valuable dia-
mond ring which he bad found to a Jew : the owner
brought his action hi Troyer to recoVer back' the
ring : the boy could not, prove the, value oftifiS
tide, and the Jew refused to. kgoduCe,it, or give any
evidence of its value. The Learned Judge:wha tried
the cause directed the Jhry to find the utmost value
they iiossibly could ;. however, the uarly, in whose
power-it was to produce the 'article or _proof of its
value by his.' own act had prevented that proof. This
case kis Lordship considered perfectly analogous
with the present ; the Defendants, by their Owu
misdeeds, had so mixed up the property of both, as
to render it impossible fOr the Plaintiff to give evi-
dence of that to which he was entitled ;- lie there-.
fore directed the Master should take evidence of the
utmost value of the aline front the Defendants them-
selves, and front thence apportionate the utmost por-
tion to the Plaintiff, and in case any difficulty
should arise in the course of the evidence, that he
should come back to the Court for further instruc-
tions. His Lordship regretted that one individual
(,Sir Thomas White) who certainly had less to do in
it than any other of the party, should be an equal
sufferer with them,. but it was his duty to have
looked better after his own interests ; he must con-
sequently submit. •
- -

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC: 19.

GOLDSMID V. FARQUHAR AND MORRIS.