The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 25.

This was the last day of Term. The Court was oc-
Fupied with motions of interest only to the parties concerned
In them to a late hour in the evening.

GOODE V. OLIVER.
In this action the plaintiff had obtained a verdict with
v,ruagen for contribution upon a ship and cargo, for the
frogshine:ar quantity of timber, consigned on board the said
or `-ri, Quebec, on account of the plaintiff, and thrown
-shic--""d on the passage to London, for the safety of the
oe der
the rest of the cargo. A rule to set aside the
was obtained this Term, on the ground that the
Inber had been stowed on the deck with the knowledge
and consent of the plaintiff, and that it had been in such
eases
ti 'lwaYs held by English Judges that the owner of
nber,being himself a party to the improper stowage, was
to
3 entitled to any compensation, should it be found neces-
urY fur the safety of the ship to throw his property over-
b?ard. The Court gave judgment to-day in favour of the
l'aintifr, and discharged the Rule.

LAW SERGEANTS.
Ir. Sergeant TADDY in the course of the day rose, and
21tiroated to their Lordships that, on the first day of the
uext Term, it was his intention, as the senior Sergeant, to
submit
to the consideration of the Court a motion on the
auckiect of the long established and constitutional privileges
the body to which he had the honour to belong. The
-I°tion to which he alluded related to the warrants of pre-
Zueuee granted by his late Majesty, and the course of
usin ess since then in that Court. The Serjeants had
forborne all complaint as long as it was possible, but they
11 ow felt that, in justice to themselves, they must raise the
Question as to the right of precedence which those warrants
gave, Of course it was not his intention to interfere with
PP_ro patents of precedence which did not affect the peculiar
ivileges of the Sergeants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nor. 25.
Mr EGAR V. CUTTRELL AND ANOTHER.
v_• LATT moved for a rule to show cause why the
rthet in this case should not he set aside, and a new trial
ile:4, on the ground of misdirection and improper reception
0
evidence. It was an action to recover 100/. on an
age anent,ree
thent, and was brought by the plaintiff against two of
Committee of the London Cemetery Company. In
X 836
the Company was established, and an Act of Parlia-
ment Was obtained, which received the Royal Assent on the
thed'?f August in the same year. The plaintiff had told
pn Company that he knew of some suitable land, and pro-
fisled to treat with the Committee for the purchase of it.
Nie evidence at the trial hal gone to prove that Mr.
lean, the attorney to the Company, had received, on
Person 13, 1837, a letter written in the handwriting of a
-en-rsan who had been clerk to Luttrell, desiring him to
co'lltnunicate to Egar that they wished the contract to be
11,41,,Pleted, and would then pay him 1001. for the trouble
eo had taken in making plans, &c, It was agreed that the
thtel atret should be completed on the sth of April ; but .on
Person started up and laid claim to the plans with
fore "le plaintiff had supplied the Company, and there-
Tay tesired compensation. The Company then refused to
111,8:ar,,who brought the action for the 100/.
Pleted entlaT considered the contract to have been corn-
s , but granted the rule on the second ground.