The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-25 00:00:00

LATIMER V. NEATE.

This was an appeal from an order of the Court of Exche-
quer. The respondent was a judgment creditor of the Duke
of Marlborough, under a bond for 7,0001., given by the Duke
in 1815. In 1818 the respondent obtained final judgment for
14,1001. debt, and 158/. ls. damages. That judgment was
suffered to abate, but was revived again in 1824, when execu-
tion was sued out, and the Sheriffs of Oxford seized at Blen-
heim the goods of the appellant. For the then appellant
brought an action in tile King's Btnch against the She-
r.ff, which was afterwards tried at Oxford, and a
verdict given for the appellant. The respondent again sued
out execution, but the Sheriff made a return of nulls bona.
The respondent then brought an action in the Court of Ex-
chequer against the Sheriff for a false return, and pending
that action the respondent filed his bill in the Court of Exch,-2-
quer against the Duke of Marlborough, and the appel-
lant praying that the bill of sale made by the Duke
of Marlborough to the appellant might be declared void.
Upon the case coming on before the Court of Exchequer,
the Lord Chief Baron ordered that the appellant should de-
posit with his clerk in Court all the Bills of Sale in his pos-
session which he had received from the Duke, and against that
decision the present appeal was brought.
Mr. SIMPKINSON and Mr. BETHELL appeared for the ap-
pellant ; and Mr. TEMPLE and Mr. ELLISON for the res-
pondent.
Mr. SIMPKINSON was addressing their Lordship's when our
Reporter left.

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lord Chancellor did not sit in the Court at West-
minster to-day, having to attend the House of Lords.

VICE-CHANCERY.-('PHIS DAY.)

The Vice-Chancellor was occupied the whole morning with
the part-heard case of Dyer v. Webb, the facts of which arc
of co importance except to the parties concerned.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

At the sitting of the Court this morning Lord Denman gave
judgment in the following cases which had been argued during
the present term :
" Doe Dem Wright v. Smith"—Rule granted. " Postle-
thwaite v. Atkinson"—No rule. " The King v. Chilton"—
Rule granted. " Knight v. Walker"— Rule granted.
" Hatchard v. Whittinghate—Rule granted. " The King,
at the prosecution of the Commissioners of Sewers of Mon-
mouth v. Lee and Others"—Rule granted. " Sweet v. Pat-
teson"—No rule. " Brook v. Finch"—Motion in arrest of
judgment—Rule granted. " Bush v. Green"—Rule granted.
Hunt e Chick"--Rule granted. " Doe Dem
smith"—Rule granted. " Taylor v. Young"—No Rule.
" Feutum v. City of Dublin Stearn Packet Company"--No
rule. " Badcoek v. Williams"—Rule granted. " Evans v.
Tomlinson"—Rule granted. " Pearson v. Clarke"—Rule
granted. " Doe Dern Botham v. Cross"—No rule. "
v. Llwellyn"—Rule granted, and " Fowler v. Port"—
No role.

The COURT then took the Special Paper.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

LORD V. NYARDEL,

This case was tried at Westminster, at the last sittings after
Trinity Term, before Mr. Justice PARKE, when a verdict was
bad for the defendant. It was an action of trover on a deed
of conveyance.

. .
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, on a former day, obtained a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial had, on the grounds of misdirection, and that the verdict
was against evidence.
Mr. Sergeant GCULBURN now appeared to show cause
against the rule.
Mr. flusrPtiains followed on'the same side.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE was heard in reply, and had not con-
cluded when our reporter left.