The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-12 00:00:00

AIL Co URT.T(T HIS DA Y.)

ADMISSION OF AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. ADDISON made an application to the Court on behalf
of an attorney whose name did not transpire, praying that his
name might be placed on the printed list of the Master for this
Term. The proper notices were given last term for admis-
sion, as this term ; but two days before the beginning of
this term, the gentleman, who resided in the country, sent an
intimation to his agent in town that he could not come up for
the purpose of being admitted during the present term ; and,
it therefore became necessary to repeat the notices, in order
that he might be admitted next term. But this difficulty pre-

sewed itself; there was not time, after the receipt of this gen-
tleman's intimation, to give the three days' notice required,
and, therefore, the Master could not place the name on the list
without the sanction of this Court.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—Were fresh notices given regularly
before this term?
Mr. ADDISON__Yes.

Mr. Justice PATTESON— A second set of notices ?
Mr. ADDISON—Yes, but they could not be delivered three
days before, and therefore the sanction of the Court was re.
quired. This was a case where double notices had been given.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said it was a case where he should be
glad to let the party in if he could. The Master informed him
that it had been done before, and therefore he would allow it
in this case.

His LORDSHIP then proceeded with the nisi prius cases.
CURIOUS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION BY A JUROR.--One of the
Jurors addressing his LORDSIIIP, requested to be excused on
account of his profession as a schoolmaster. If compelled to
serve he must give the boys a holiday.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—I think that will not exempt you
from serving.

Applicant—l have been excused on that ground at the West
minster Sessions.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—They have stepped a little beyond
their authority in excusing you. It is very inconvenient to the
boys, no doubt.—( Laughter. )—Application refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY,

M'GEORGE V. EGAN.
IMPORTANT TO BOARDING-SCHOOL KEEPERS.
Mr. HUMPHREYS applied in this case for a nonsuit or a new
trial. It was an action brought before the Sheriff for 191.
los., being three months' remuneration for the maintenance
and instruction of a young lady ; the verdict was for the plain-
tiff. The evidence for the plaintiff was, that the wife of the
defendant had taken the young lady to school, and that he
had visited her while there. The defendant was by marriage
the uncle of the young lady. Now he ( Mr. Humphrey) sub-
mitted that there was no evidence at all to fix the liability on
Vie defendant. The father of the young lady was living,
though in the country, when she was sent to school—
her mother had been dead some years. Surely it could
not be said that any uncle who visited his niece at school—
even though his wife had taken her there—was liable for her
board and education. How many cases were there of chil-
dren, whose parents, residing in the country, being committed
for a short, time to the care of an aunt or uncle, who might, by
merely taking them to school and visiting them there, be
fixed with the liability for all expenses incurred, if such a doc-
trine was to be held. What authority had the wife, again,
by taking her niece to school, to bind her husband ? In order
to prove the husband's liability all the, tradesmen in the
neighbourhood had been called at the trial ; butcher, baker,
green-grocer, &c., because it was proved that the wife was in
the habit of ordering onions and parsnips, and the husband in
the habit of paying for them, that, therefore, he must pay for
the little girl's school.—(Laughter.) The Learned Counsel
submitted that this evidence was totally inadmissible. It might
as will he contended, that because a cook or a footman ordered
meat and bread which their master paid for, that if they took
a girl to school—even without his knowledge—yet he was
liable. That certainly would be monstrous
The LORD CHIEF J USTIC E —Where is the father?
Mr. HUMPIIREYS.-He died, my Lord, after the little gill
had been put to school.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET. —Why did you not then take her
from the school?

Mr. HUMPIIREYS.-Why, my Lord, that would have been
the very way to fix ourselves with the liability ; for it would
have been at once said that we admitted our liability previous
to the father's death. The Learned Counsel said he did not
complain of the Under_ Sheriff's direction, for he told the Jury
that it was the slightest case he ever knew ; whereupon the
Jury found for the plaintiff. And that very same Jury had
sat for 14 weeks before, and had never once found a verdict
for defendant.—(Laughter.)
Lord CHIEF-JUSTICE.-You want to spoil the prescription.
—( Loud laughter.)
Mr. HumenrtEys—My Lord, I think it is unreasonable.—
(Renewed laughter.)
The COURT unanimously were of opinion that though the
evidence undoubtedly was very slight, yet it was evidence to go
to a Jury; and they were not disposed to disturb the verdict.

DUNTLEY V. JESSICK.
This was a case of a rather singular nature. A writ of in-
quiry had taken place before the Sheriff of Northamptonshire
as to certain injuries alleged to have been inflicted by de-
fendant on plaintiff's son, who had since died in the workhouse
of the King's-evil. The Jury found a verdict for plantiff,
damages 2001.

Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside. This affidavit stated
that through ignorance of the law the defendant (who was a
small farmer) had not attended the inquiry, which was, there-
fore ex-parte. The evidence for the plaintiff was simply,
that two yrars and more before the lad's death his master, the
defendant, had in a passion kicked him, and that an abscess
had a long time after arisen in his side, which was occasioned
probably by a blow. On the part of the defendant it was now
sworn that the kicks were ordinary kicks—that the lad had not
complained at the time—and that he had Leen quite well for
above two years afterwards ; and further, that the injuries of
which he died were occasioned by a cold.
The Court granted a rule Nisi.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY

TUCK V. TUCK.

This action was tried before the LORD CHIEF BARON at
the sittings in Westminster after last term, when a verdict
was foiled for the plaintiff—Damages 80/. 4s. 9d.
Mr. PLATT now moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
or why the verdict should not be reduced by the sum of 30/.
The action was brought upon an I 0 U, for 90/. The
plaintiff proved the handwriting of the defendant to the I 0 U,
and upon that claimed the verdict. The defence was, that the
defendant had at various times paid the plaintiff the sums of
221. 10s., 171. 175., and 30/. At the trial it was proved that
after the action was brought, the plaintiff admitted that he
owed his uncle (the defendant), the sums of 5/. and 41.155.6 d.,
being his share of expences incurred in a visit to Melton Mow-
bray, which the Jury allowed. He (Mr. P.) now contended
that he was entitled to the payments which were made by
three cheques, which were in evidence. There had been
many pecuniary transactions between the parties, and
when a sum passed, an 1 0 U was given; or, if the
money passed by a cheque, the document stood as evi-
dence of the transaction. The I 0 Uin question was
dated 27th March, 1837. The cheques were drawn by the
defendant upon Drummond and Co., and were crossed in the
handwriting of the plaintiff, clearly showing that they had
passed through his hands. The first two were dated before
the date of the I 0 U, which the Lord Chief Baron took to be
a settlement of the entire accounts between the parties, and di-
rected the Jury to put those two cheques out of their con-
sideration.
Lord ADINGER—That was proved by your own witness.
When he proved the admissions as to the 5/. and the 4/. 15s. 6d.
he said the plaintiff said, " I only want to do what is
right by my uncle. I remember having 5/. from him, and the
half of the expenses of the trip to Melton Mowbray are still
due. We forgot these sums, but I will allow them."
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Then that reduces the question to
the 301. cheque which is dated subsequently to the I 0 U.
Mr. PLATT would then confine himself to that point. At
the trial the difficulty which arose was that the cheques, being
crossed, would only be paid to some one who had an account
with Drummond and Co., and the evidence was, that
the plaintiff had none. He accounted for that in
this way. It was in evidence that it was the duty
of the young man to collect moneys for the firm of
Tuck and Hornley, who were coal-merchants, and to pay over
the money so collected to another clerk, named Glover. At
the times when he received those cheques he paid them to the
firm, who did bank with Drummond, and kept the money he
had collected.

Lord ABINGER—The evidence was, that when either of the
partners collected money they paid it over to the young man, who
entered it to the general account, and the Jury found that
the cheques had been paid in that way. But how did the
cheques come into your possession, if it has ever been paid?—
(The cheque having been handed up.) This cheque has
never been paid—it is not marked in any way. I may tell
you what I did not tell the Jury, that Drummonds never re-
turn cheques—it is a rule of their house never to do so. If
they arc wanted in a Court of Justice, they send a clerk
with them.

Mr. PLATT said the cheque in question had been returned,
which he could verify by affidavit. The fact was that the 301.
had been paid, and he then held in his hand a receipt for it,
but, unfortunately, it was not stamped.
The COURT. —There will likely be no occasion to use it.
Verify the fact of the cheque having been paid, and take a rule
for a new trial, unless the plaintiff agrees to reduce the verdict
by the sum of 301.—Rule granted.

CORN-LAWS.—A requisition, dated the 9th of Ja-
nuary, numerously and respectably signed by the inhabi-
tants of Liverpool and its vicinity, has been presented to
the Mayor of that town, requesting that he would convene
a town meeting on the subject of the Corn-laws. The
Mayor has appointed Wednesday next, the 16th instant,
at one o'clock, for a public meeting.
CORN LAWS.—WARD OF BISHOPSGATE._
(From a Correspondent of the Times).—Yesterday the in-
habitants of the above ward were summoned to take into
consideration the propriety of petitioning Parliament to
make such a revision or alteration of the Corn-laws as the
circumstances of the country demand. At the time fixed
upon for the commencement of business (11 o'clock), Mr.
Alderman Copeland found himself surrounded by an assem-
blage which (including four Common Councilmen, the ward
clerk, the two beadles, and one little boy), constituted
altogether fifteen souls, the concentrated essence of
30,000, the number of the ward's population, to all of
whom the worthy Alderman had been constrained to issue
his summons. After the business had been formally
opened, the Alderman smiled, the vast concourse chuckled
in sympathy, and Mr. Deputy Peacock, seeing the absur-
dity of the whole proceeding, put an extinguisher upon
further jocularity by at once moving that the meeting do
adjourn sine die, to the evident contentment of all, save,
perhaps, the two gentlemen whose labours in seed time and
in harvest had been productive of a crop so scanty as their
granary then presented. The motion was carried nevi. dw.
It is surmised that this untoward failure will henceforward
induce those very active and pains-taking individuals entirely
to cut the Corn-law question, and quietly leaste the unra-
velling of its intricacies to hands less clumsy their own.