The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN'S BENCH, Fos. 15.
THE QUERN V. WRENCH AND OTHERS.
Mr. THESIGER, Mr. ERLE, Mr. HUMPHREY, and MR. JA,IFS were
for the prosecution; the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SIR W. FOLLETT
LETT,
Ma. JERVIS, anti MR. BODKIN for the defendants.
This was a prosecution instituted by the Coopers' Company against
the defendants, who are the Directors of the British Gas Light
Com-
pany for a nuisance committed by them in the manufacture of gas
at their works in School-House lane.
After Mr. THESIGER had stated the nature of the case,
Lord DENMAN suggested the propriety of referring it.
Counsel having conferred together for a considerable time, with.
out being able to come to any arrangement,
Lord DENMAN suggested that some person should be empowere d
to inquire whether the defendants were guilty of a nuisance, and
enter a verdict accordingly—if guilty, to direct in what manner the
works should be carried on in future, and to decide between the
defendants and the Company whether, and on what terms, the de..
fendants should purchase any land, and what quantity of land.
The terms were agreed to with some trifling variations, and Mr.
Biggs Andrews was appointed arbitrator.
DELISSER V. TOWNE.—SPECIAL JURY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Sir F. POLLOCK, Mr. THESIGER, and
Mr. Hamm, were for the plaintiff; Mr. liEttv, and Air. AN.,
cittews, for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a medical gentleman, residing in Woburn
Russell-square, and the defendant is an attorney. The action was
brought to recover compensation in damages for a malicious prose.
cution for perjury.
The Jury found a verdict for theplaintiff—Darnagu, 8001.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 15.
FOX V. DAMS.
This was an action for illegally detaining a watch, the property of
the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Bon•pas stated the case ; and after wit_
nesses had been examined at some length,
the Jury returned a
verdict for the defendant.
vf,NNING V. gletiMoNn•
In this case the plaintiff, a solicitor, sought to recover the sum of
41/. from the defendant, who had taken an assignment of a large
of vinegar, and the plant on premises in Sutton-street.
quantity
Mr. Martin appeared far the defendant, and complained that his
client had been imposed upon. Several witnesses were examined ;
and the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
INSOLVENT COURT, FEE. 15.
IN THE MATTER OF SIR WILLIAM TWYSDEN, BART.
The insolvent, Sir William Twysden appeared from the Fleet
Prison, on application to be admitted to bail.
Mr. Canty. opposed the proposed sureties on the part of the de_
tainlng creditor.
Mr. F. Twysden and Mrs. Williams, attended to sign the required
recognizance.
Mr. Twysden stated that he resided at 530,,
,I:iiet d it
retlraend-plwaocert,hEsdogoie
ware-road. The furniture was his own, he considered
There was no claim on his property.
Mrs. Williams said she was a lodging-house keeper, at 41, Dor.
set..street, Portman-square, where she had furniture worth 900 z.
free from all claims.
answered satisfactorily, and lbieefhoard
no further objection. e
Mr. COOKE said the bail had
Mr. Commissioner Bowasf—Where did you live Sir William
you went to prison?
Insolvent—At 41, Dorset.street.
Mr. Commissioner BONVEN—At the same house as kept b
Williams :llrs
Sir William answered in the affirmative.
The COURT accepted the bail, and the par'•,
et si red a
mice in the sum of 3101. to produce Sir " g recognia
the day appointed for his hearing, illiam on the 14th March,
and further undertook that he ..nd on every adjourned hearing,
Court.
eflOuld abide by the judgment of the

The 0-
ket fleral Steam Navigation Company's pay_
, gne Giredre, from Rotterdam, arrived of the Custorn.house at
Nine o'clock, a. m., this day.