The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-15 00:00:00

AFTER TERM,
Nliddlesex.—Tuesday, June 1.3.

London.—Wednesday, June 14.
The Court will sit aL eleven o'clock in Tenn, in did lh set ;
at twelve in London; and in both at half-past nine alter Terni.
N.B.—Long causes will probably be pestroned from the
23d and 26th of May to June 13th, and all othpr canTes on.the
lists for the 23d and 26:h of May, will be taken from d,iy to
day until they are tried. Undeferided causes only will be taken
on June 9. Defended as well as undefended causes entered
for the sitting of June 10,•will be tried on that day if the plain
tiffs wish it, unless there be a satisfactory affidavit of merits.

COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS.
:ttings appointed in Middlesex and London, before the Right
Iron. Sir Nieoks Conyngbarn Tindal, Knight, Lard Chief
Justice of his Majesty's Court of Common Picas at West—
minster, in and after Trinity Term, 1837.
IN TERN.

Middlesex —Fri-1:y, May 26 ; Friday, June 2.
London.—Wednesday, May 31 ; Wednesday, June 7
ATTER TERM.

Middlesex.—Tuesday, June 13:
London.—,Wednesdny, June 14.

N. B. The Court will sit at ten o'clock in the foremen on
each of the days in Tcrm, and at hilf-past nine Freeiselyon
each of the days after Term. The causes in the list for ea, h
of the above sitting days in Term, if not disposed of on those
days, t‘ ill be tried by adjournment on the days following each
of such sitting days. Oa Wednesday, the 14th of June, in
London no Causes will be tried, but the Court will adjourn to
a future day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Mir 13
WATERSTEDT V. LOCKELBY.

This wat an ac:.ion to recover 861. Is. 9d., the value of
some marine metal, supplied to the defendant by the plain-
tiff, as a covering fur a ship. The deEnce to the action was,
that the metal had not answered its intended purpose, of
keeping the ship's bottom clear from animalculm. The
plaintiff instituted experiments with the same objects as Slr
Humphrey Davy— had. combined such metals together in
such a way, that they would resist the ordinary action of
sea-water in oxydizing them ; but that this advantage was
counterbalanced, as in the case of Sir Humphrey Davy's
discovery, by the circumstance that the compound metal
did not prevent the animalcule; settling upon it in great
numbers. The'reply given by the plaintiff to this de'rence
was, that the metal had not been warranted for the preven-
tion of the adhesion of animalculm, and that the plaintiff's
vessel having sailed into hot latitudes, where they were more
than usually, numerous and troublesome, and having st-kid
in those latitudes for some considerable time, their adhesion
to the bottom of the vessel was to be anticipated.

The Jury gave the plaintiff a verdict for the amou:.t
claimed.

WILSON V. LAY.

This was an action brought to recover back a sum of
291. 165., paid by the plaintiff upon a bill of exchange.
The plaintiff had carried on the business of a linen-draper
in Goswell-street, and the defendant was a warehouseman
in the City. The plaintiff had become indebted to the
defendant for goods supplied in the course of his basiness ;
and having afterwards fallen into embarrassed circumstances,
he entered into a composition deed with his creditors. The
defendant's claim was calculated among the rest, hut it did
not appear that he had ever executed the composition deed.
The bill of exchange in question amounted to the difference.
between the composition at which the claim had been cal-
culated and the sum originally due to_him. The bill was
drawn by the clerk of the defendant, and had been ac-
cepted and paid by the plaintiff. It was now proved that•
there never had been any dealings in trade between the
plaintiff and the defendant's clerk-, and that the bill, though
drawn by the latter, was drawn on account of his master,
and the amount afterwards paid to him.
Lord PENMAN told the jury that this action was main-
tainable by the plaintiff, and he directed them to find their
verdict accordingly ; but he reserved leave for the de-
fendant to move to enter a nonsuit.—Verdict accordingly.