The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-30 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS ])AY.)

His Honour the VICE CHANCELLOR was occupied
the whole morning with motions of no interest what-
ever except to the parties concerned.

-----
QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
DOE DEM. WYNNE V. SIMPSON.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case. It was
an action of ejectment upon certain property, which had
been conveyed to the defendant's father, and he had
conveyed it by way of mortgage to the lessor of the
plaintiff. The question was whether the statute of limi-
tations operated to bar the plaintiff's right. The
Court was of opinion that it did not, and therefore the
rule must be discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

',Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord ABINGER and a
Special. Jury.)
EDWARDS V. THE EARL OF GLENGALL.

This action was brought for the purpose of recovering
the sum of 4001. upon two bills of exchange, of which
the noble defendant was the acceptor.
Mr. PLATT (with him Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Humfrey)
stated the case for the plaintiff. He could not conceive
why such a simple action should have been tried by a
special jury, except it were for the purposes of delay,
and he was borne out in that conclusion by the fact that
when the action was first brought, a bill was filed iu
Chancery, which had had the desired effect of delaying
the trial from 1832 to 1839. He would prove the hand-
writing of the noble defendant, and wait to hear what de-
fence would be offered.

John Davis examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Was for-
merly in the employment of John Edwards, a tailor
in Conduit-street. The Ecceptanc es to the two bills
produced were in the hand-writing, of the Earl of
Glengall. After the bills became due, he waited upon
his Lordship at the request of the plaintiff, who was
the son of John Edwards. He saw him in Lower
Grosvenor-street, and his Lordship said the moment he
had funds he would pay the bills.
Cross-examined.—He did not know what month the
interview took place. It was after the bills became
due, and immediately upon their being returned. It
must have been in the months of June, July, or August.
He knew that Lord EGlengall was in embarrassed cir-
cumstances, and that he wanted more accommodation
from John Edwards, which was refused until the two
bills in question .were settled.

Re-examined.—Lord Glengall came frequently to
Conduit-street, and was supplied with large quantities
of clothes, and he had seen John Edwards lend him
money, and also discount his acceptances.
The bills were then put in and read—they were dated
in April and November, 1826.
Sir F. POLLOCK (with whom were Mr. KELLY and
Mr. WATSON) said it was not his noble client who
was chargeable with delay, and he was astonished to
hear his Learned Friend gravely put forward such a
charge. The bills were dated in 1826 —the action was
not commenced till 1882—not until the Statute of Li-
mitations had run respecting one of the bills—with that
delay the noble defendant was! clearly not chargeable.
The Noble Lord believing that the bills had not come
bone fide into the possession of the plaintiff, and finding
himself sued by the son of John Edwards, his tailor,
he filed a bill to know how he came to possess them, and
what consideration he gave for them. That bill was filed in
1833, hull no, answer was put in by the plaintiff till
1835—another delay that was to be charged upon the
defendant. Exceptions to the answer were taken and
allowed by the Court no less than seven times—the
seventh answer which was not excepted to, was not put
in till June last, and, therefore, not until that time
was the' case ripe for the decision of a Jury, but
not at any one of -the steps did the cause lie with
the defendant. Tnat charge then would have no weight
with the Jury, as it proved totally unfounded. The
bills were in a mutilated state, and he would prove by
evidence given by the plaintiff himself in another cause,
that he was connected in bill transactions with the
notorious John Minter Hart. Altogether he would lay
before them a ease of such suspicion, as he had no doubt.
would secure a verdict for his client.

(Tne case was proceedin, when we went to press.)

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and Mr. Justice BosAN-

(WET.)

The following presentment was made this morning
by the Grand Jury :
" The Jurors for our Sovereign Lady the Queen pre-
sent, that their duty, es they conceive, has been ren-
dered unnecessarily burthensome, from the great num-
ber of commitments for trial at this Court, of offences
within the county of Middlesex, which in their opi-
nion ought to have been disposed of at the Sessons held
for that county, and that by such a course their
labours might have been greatly abridged, much
expense and inconvenience to the parties concerned '
that the Court will make
attained. The Jurors, there-
might have been avoided, and the ends of justice
suchfa re
,might
smt
roosnt
havegeabr
quarter, as will
in future sessions hive the effect of preventing, by in-
struction
c'et'equallystlYentreat
presentations
on this matter to the committing magistrates,
the recurrence of a similar evil.
" The Jurors aforesaid further present that, during a
prutFautcd oittipg of six days, they have with much
satisfaction obserrori the zeal and vigilance displayed by
the officers of the police, in the prevention and the
4eLPction of crime ; as also the clear and satisfactory
way in which their evidence has been given, in all cases
wherein their tesit;rtonY iffis. been ne?essary,
" The Jurors aforesaid farther Present that they feel
greatly indebted to the Court for the legal 1
tlSS,Stanue
aitignta to them in the person of Marshall Straight,
Esq., a geratelnat, 110:04111) Wh9.§e very able and efficient
aid tiii,:ir 14bcur§ I've ail moat materially lessened,
and their inquiries tTry vo3jagrrilliy facilitated,,'
Mr. Baron PARKE said that die t,iliiit ,wiqld i,;„
care tc, at 3 representation to the Secretary of gtate
with regard to the go; part 9f the presentment. The
Court was happy to learn that the lagf+), :
3sgistance Fiver'
to them had been of service to then), a
41-4-4 also that OW
conduct of the police had beem
n such as to erit
their anrproFal, and the Court was. happy- tq

bear its testimony also to the good conduct and exer-
tions of the police.
The Grand Jury were then discharged after receiving
the thanks of the Court for their services.
Elizabeth Parker, who was charged with setting fire
I to the house of Mr. Stammers, was acquitted of that
charge, but having pleaded guilty to various larcenies,
she was sentenced to seven years' transportation on the
first indictment, and to seven .years additional on the
I other indictments, such time to commence from the ex-
piration of the first sentence.

Mr. Westmacott, as the prosecutor in this case, said
he thought it his duty to call the attention of the Court
to the conduct of the pawnbrokers in affording faci-
lities for the disposal of stolen property. In
this case thirty-six duplicates had been found, varying
in amount from 6d. to 51. Its., of almost every descrip-
tion of property, which had been pledged with one pawn-
broker in Long Acre, to whom the prisoner had given
the name of Ann Parker, No. 17, Maiden-lane. The
pawnbroker had never inquired at that address, and,
when applied to by the parties to this prosecution, in-
stead of affording any facility, he denied having ever
seen the prisoner. _

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET said the public were obliged
to the prosecutor for the statement he had made, and
he had no doubt the attention of the police would be
drawn to the.subject.
Mr. Baron PARKE said pawnbrokers acting thus
placed themselves in an awkward situation, as they would
be in danger of being indicted as receivers of stolen
goods.
The pawnbroker was refused his expences.

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
GIG ROBBERY.—John Winter, David Price, and
Richard Carey, were indicted for stealing a coat and
cloak, the property of T. Haines.
The prosecutor, who is a publican, had left the pro-
perty in question in a gig standing near a house in How-
laud-street, at which he had called on business, and
where,he remained a short time.

The coat was found on Winter, who stated it h:ld
been lent him by Price, as the night was wet.—(A

The RECORDER summed up, and
The Jury found the prisoners Guilty.
Previous convictions having been proved agiinst the
prisoners they were each sentenced to seven years'
transportation.