The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-17 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Banco.---(Before Lord Chief Justice
Erle, and Justices Williams, Willes, and Keating.)
The matters which came before the court to-day
were 'devoid of public interest.
_ _ _

Sittings at NisiPrius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr.
Justice Byles and a common jury.)
BINDEN v. LANERGAN. - TRESPASS.

The plaintiff's case was that she had been the
confidential friend of Mrs. Lanergan, a lady of
rank, and upon the marriage of that lady in 1837
she took a house for the plaintiff in Oxford-terrace,
Hyde-park, and gave her £2OO or £3OO worth of
furniture to enable her to let lodgings. On the
31st October, 1859, Mr. Lanergan went to the house
with his solicitor and two constables, said that every
thing there was his, and ordered the plaintiff out,
and on her objecting to go some men were called
in and she was expelled by force. At this time she
had in the house £7O or £BO worth of furniture,
and wearing apparel worth £2O more, and this
property she had lost.
Mr.D.Keane and Mr. Philbriok appeared for the
plaintiff, but there was no person in attendance for
the defendant.

Tho jury gave a verdict for tho plaintiff—
damages £9O, and it was arranged that the verdict

oavroa

should be reduced to 40s. upon the property being
given up.

WEAR V. COLBATCII.-ERROR IN WEIGHT NOTE.

The defendant in this case was a storekeeper and
Custom-house agent in Lower Thames-street, and
he received a case of albumen, which was deposited
in his warehouse, and his clerk gave a weight-note
which described it as weighing 1 cwt. 3 qrs. 161bs.
Martin, who deposited it, sold to Stanton, who sold
to the plaintiff. When the case was sent for it
appeared that the weight was only 3 qrs. 161b5.,
and the plaintiff now sued in trovor to recover the
larger quantity of albumen.
Mr, Hibton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Collier and Mr. Honeyman for the defendant.
Witnesses were called on both sides, and on be-
half of the defendant it was stated that he had
never received more than 3 qrs. 161b5., and that the
weight in the note was an error of his clerk.
His lordship reserved several questions of law,
and asked the jury to consider whether the defen-
dant ever had more than the 3 qrs. 161b5., and
whether he had converted what he had to his own
use. _ _ _

The jury found for the defendant, but said that,
as the plaintiff had bought upon the faith of the
note being correct, he was entitled to some conside-
ration.

His lordship said ho was of the same opinion.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lot d Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Channel], and Wilde.)
CROFT V. STEVENS-RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.

This was an action for libel tried before Mr. Jus.
tice Wightman at the summer assizes for Surrey,
when the defendant pleaded not guilty and a justi•
fication.

The plaintiff in the action, Dr. Croft, resided at
Mandarin-villas, St. John's-wood, and was captain
commandant of the Ist Middlesex Artillery Volun-
teer corps, in which the defendant, a retired major
of the Madras Cavalry, was adjutant. A letter
purporting to have been written Ly the defen-
dant W4B received by Messrs. Richards and Co.,
directing them to send to the headquarters of the
corps, No. 3, Hanover-square, a target of the Go-
vernment pattern. They did so, but the order was
repudiated by the defendant, on the ground that the
letter ordering the target was not in his handwrit-
ing, but fictitious, and that the writing was in the
handwriting of the plaintiff. On this an action for
libel was brought, when the jury returned a verdict
that there was no malice on the part of the defendant,
and for the plaintiff with respect to the handwriting
for £5, leave being reserved by the learned judge to
set aside the verdict and to enter a nonsuit, on the
ground that the communication was privileged.
Mr. Sergeant Stiee moved accordingly last term,
and obtained a rule nisi, which he now moved to
make absolute. In the course of his argument,
Mr. Baron Wilde observed that the defendant in
his letter to Messrs. Richards had made no charge
against the plaintiff. It was very doubtful whether
it was a libel at all, and then the other questions
arose, was it, if so, privileged, and then was the alle-
gation true ?
The court said the rule must be made absolute,
when

Mr. Hawkins, who had been speaking in the
Queen's Bench, came into court and showed cause.
He said that no doubt the corps had been greatly
annoyed. All sorts of orders had been given.
The Lord Chief Baron—What kind of orders ?

_ Mr. Hawkins—Well, my lord, there were orders
for nurses, and for perambulators, and for cats, and
they all attended, but the dogs which were ordered
did not come, perhaps from an instinct of a little
matter which had occurred to one of their race at
Wimbledon. (Great laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron :then said that the court
adhered to their former opinion, and made the rule
absolute.