The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-05 00:00:00

V. DANIEL.

This was a demurrer to a plea. The action in this case
was likewise for calls, and the declaration was sufacient, but
the plea did not take every alternative stated in the Act con-
stituting the Company, and prescribing how a persen might
become a proprietor of the Company, and aver that in none
of the ways there described had he become such proprietor.
The COURT gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
COLLINS V. BEAUMONT.

This was an action upon a judgment. The defendant
pleaded that he had been arrested on the judgment, and di;
charged. The pia'ntiff replied that the discharge was di-
rected on the ground Jf irregularity in issuing the writ, and
was not a satisfaction. There was a demurrer to this replica-
tion, chiefly on the ground that the matter statad in it was not
an an wee to the pica.
The COURT took time to consider the question.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FED. 4.
NORCUTT v. MOTTRAM.

This was an action of trovcr for goods, which, it V.'ai
alleged, the defendant had wrongfully converted.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
mALtNs V. FREEMAN.

This was an action for a breach of contract.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde and Mr. V. Richards appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Kelly and Mr. Watso❑ for the defendant.

The phtintiff in this case was the owner of some property
shich had been sold by auction, and the defendant was a pur-
chaser at that sale of one lot for 1,4001. It appeared that the
defendant went to the sale for the purpose of protecting the
i,iterests of a friend by bidding arrains: bona fide purchasers,
until the price of the lot was raised to a certain amount ; how-
ever, by sonic mistake he bid for the wrong lot, which was
knocked down to him at 1,4001. He refused to fulfil his con-
tract, and now set up several answers to the present action ;
some of which involved points of law in reference to the Sta-
tute of Frauds, which the parties agreed to for the opi-
nion of the Court in a special verdict. It appeared that a per-
son named Edwards attended at the sale f:ar the purpose of
buing in on behalf of the owner of the property ; that be did
buy in a'vcral lots, but the auctioneer could not recollect
whether he did or did not bid for the lot purchased by defen-
dant. One ground cf defence was, that Edwards did bid on
bchal of the owner, and that the defendant had no notice of
his bidding in that capacity.
The Learned Jueoe left th,se t:vo questions of fact to the
Jury, who gave their verdict for the defendant, saying that
Edwards did bid for the lot in question, and that the defendant
had no notice of the character in which he was bidding.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB 4.
THR ATTORNEY- OMNF.R.iI. V. NOLDWRIT.

This was an information filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General, to recover the treble value of five hogsheads of brandy,
It appeared that, on the 6th of October last, six hogslmids,
purporting to contain wine, arrived from Boulogne in the Kmt
steamer, with orders for their being placed in the %vat-thou:ea
at the St. Katharine's Docks. On the 7th the steamer e.as due
for another voyage, anti the goods remaining in her were landed
by the Custom Eiouse-officers, and lodged is the Queen's ware-
house. On the 13th the defendant, who was a guager, guaged
five of the casks, and passed them as wine, a duty of only
ss. 61. being paid instead of the brandy duty of 11 2s. 6d.
While he was guaging the sixth a person standing by said it
c_mtained brandy, and the defendant immediately marked it
,lith a broad arrow, but did not examine the other five. On
the. morning of the 14C1 they were taken to the Fox and Knot,
in Cow-lone, Smitlitiold, by one carman, and on the following
morning three of them were conveyed to the premises of
Mr. Shillibt.er, in Camlen.town. The evidence was given
by a person named Collings, who had been in Shillibeer's
erniloy, and who, upon being accused by his employer of rob.
bing him, gave information to the Customs, whose officers
went upon the premises, and found 121 gallons of brandy
drawn off into a vat, and also the three hogsheads and three
tin tubes which had been fitted from the bung. The marks
upon the hogsheads found corresponded exactly with those on
that which was seized.

The Jury gAve their verdict in favour of the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEB. 4.

THEATRICAL SPECULATIONS

A. W. Hyde was opposed by Mr. Cooke on the part of Mr.
Richard Morgan, and supported by Mr. \Voodroffe.
The insolvent, who said he was an actor, had formerly been
in the police force. He subsequently took the Marylebone
Theatre, in Church-street, Paddington. He had formerly had
an engagement for a short time at the Queen's Theatre. tie
had 7001. in right of his wife, the daughter of Mr. Leman, who
kept a public-house in North-street, Lissougrove. The
whole of the 7001. was sunk in the theatre. He was ques-
tioned as to whether any portion of that sum was now in the
hands of his father-in-law ? He was asked as to the evidence
he had given on a recent trial, in which his father-in-law was
defendant. He was made liable for some bricks supplied to
the theatre.
Mr. Leman was examined. He said he had made the ad-
vances, and 7001. more. The whole had been spent in the
theatre. He had to pay 40/. to get the lease off his hands.
The Conga- was satisfied that the whole money had been
expended in the speculation, and discharged the insolvent.