The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT O.P KING'S BENCH, JAN. 28.
4PENCE2t V. NEWTON.
Sir F. POLLOCK Showed cause against a rule obtained
during the week by the, Attorney-General, calling on the
plaintiff to show (muse •why the defendant should not be
discharged out of the ,:ustody of the Marshal of the King's
Bench Prison. The facts of the case have already ap-
peared. The Learned Counsel, in showing cause, contended
that the rule could not be sustained, on the ground upon
which it was moved for, namely, that Mr. Newton was
exempt from arrest on the score of being privileged in con-
sequence of the postronement of the hearing before the
arbitrator.
.
Mr. KELLY also s bowed cause on the part of Mr. Lane,
6 who bad sued out a easel against Mr. Newton.
The ATTORNEY-.GENERAL addressed the Court in p-
port of the rule.
The COURT was of opinion that the privilege could not
be considered to extend from the 7th to the 16th of Jan.
The rule must therefore be discharged.—Rule discharged
accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, .1.4 x. 28.
POWER. V. HORTON.
This was an action to recover 13/. odd, the balance of a
builder's account, in which a verdict had been found for the
plaintiff, damages 5/. 6s. ld., and a rule for a new trial had
been obtained on behalf of defendant, on the ground that
the deputy sheriff, before-whom the case was tried, had in-
terrupted the defendant's attorney in the course of his cross-
examination of the witnesses as to the various items in the
account, which were exceedingly numerous. - The rule had
been obtained upon an affidavit from the attorney to that
effect, and stating that if he had been allowed to pro-
ceed, he would have been able to reduce many of the said
items.—Rule discharged.
RYAN V. STACRPOOLE.
This was an action on a quantum MC: lilt for work and
labour done by the plaintiff in the service of the defendant.
The circumstances of the ease have been frequently before
the public ; and it will be remembered that the action
arises out of a claim to the extent of 100,0001., confirmed
by a decision of the House of Lords, which the present de-
fendant had upon property in the possession of Count Stack-
poole, and which the plaintiff was employed to enforce ; that
for that purpose he proceeded to Paris in 1819 ; but was in
about six months thrown int& the prison of St. Pelagic for
debt, having, however, previously obtained, through a letter
from Lord Castlereagh, several interviews on the subject
with Sir Charles Stewart, then British Ambassador at Paris ;
that whilst he was there he introduced to the defendant a
person named Le Gros, who undertook to prosecute the
claim, and with whom a contract was entered into, that-in
case of his prosecuting it successfully he should receive
14,0001. M. Dupin, Baron Patier, and other parties also
subsequently interfered, and finally in March, 1824, a de-
cree in favour of the defendant was obtained. The agree-
ment with Le Gros was litigated by the defendant, but fi-
nally established by the French Court, and the right of the
plaintiff to compensation was referred to the determination
of the Judges in this country. An action was accordingly
brought in this Court, and a verdict obtained f0r,1,5001.,
and the object of the present application was to set aside
that verdict. The question which arose between the parties
was mainly as to the nature of the agreement under which
Mr. Ryan first proceeded to Paris.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD and Mr. 13AnsTow were heard
on Thursday against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant WILDE in
support of it.
Mr. KELLY appeared this morning on the same side with
Mr. Sergeant Wilde.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Court were
very desirous that the.partics should free them froni the
necessity either of violating a general rule or perhaps in-
flicting some hardship. if they would only appoint some
gentlemen of experience and discretion to undertake the
investigation of the matter, the justice of the case might
be completely satisfied.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 28.
WALLIS V. DAY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of covenant to recover the arrears of
a weekly allowance of 21. Ss. 10d. The plaintiff formerly
carried on on his own account, the trade of a carrier be-
tween London and St. Ives. He subsequently made an
agreement with the defendants to give up to them the be-
nefit of his. name and customers. The action was brought
open a deed by which- the defendants covenanted with
plaintiff to pay him this weekly sum for the space of 13
years, and a diminished allowance for the rest of his life, in
cnn sidcration among other things, of the plaintiff covenanting
that he would not, either bylnmself ir any in his name or
on his account, exercise or carry Oh the trade of a carrier
in any part of England, during the term of his natural life,
and that he would serve them faithfully during his file.
A demurrer was taken to this declaration, on the ground
that ,the covenant was void, being granted upon a conside-
ration which was illegal, being in
.restraint of trade, and
against public policy.
Lord ABINGER Said there is in this case adequate and
sufficient consideration for the contract, which is good, and
there must, therefore, be judgment for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MA NS I ON-HOUSE.

On Saturday a man of respectable appearance, named
Robert Featherstone Gleathcad, was brought b fore the
Lout) Ms or. for final examination, by Sergeant Mealy, of
the City police, charged with having procured samples of
wine by means of forged warrants.
The prisoner, who referred to his long-established repu-
tation for integrity, and declared that he had committed no
effence, was fully committed for trial.