The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-07 00:00:00

OLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.

The MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied the whole of the
morning with the remaining Petitions, which were devoid of
any feature of public interest.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY,
___

DOE, DEM. BETHUNE U. SANDFORD.
In this ca se, which Ras argued a few days since by Mr.
Balguy, the Court gave judgment. The verdict of the Jury
did not appear to them satisfactory, therefore there must be a
role for a new trial.

ALLEN AND OTHERS V. GOMM,
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was tried
before Mr. Justice Littledale at the last assizes for Norfolk.
The question was, whether a right of road granted to a shed
of a particular description, called the wood-house, remained
when the shed had been conve►ted into a building of a very
different description. It was important that question should
be fully considered, and therefore there must be a rule for a
new trial. •

LEDEITTER V. lIART.
Mr. CRESWELL moved in this case, which was beard before
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS at the last Liverpool Assizes, and a
verdict had for the plaintiff, 201., for a rule nisi for a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict had been against, the evidence.
The plaintiff was an upholsterer carrying on business at Man-
chester, and the action was brought for goods sold and deli-
vered to the defendant, who had gone with another upholsterer
named Reynolds, and selected room papers to that amount.
The paper was sent to the house of Reynolds, by whom
it was put up in the defendant's house. It was proved
at the time that the plaintiff had been in the habit
of supplying Reynolds with paper for furnishing his
customers' houses, and that on one occasion the bill was sent
to the customer instead of Reynolds, who, on this occasion,
reminded plaintiff of the former mistake, and directed the
bill to be sent to him. After hearing the arguments of
Counsel, the Court granted the rule.

NATIONAL BANK OF IRELAND.—REYNOLDS V. ROBINSON.
Sir W. FOLLETT moved in this case, which was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Williams at the last Liverpool Assizes,
verdict for the defendant, for a rule to show cause why judg-
ment should not be entered for the plaintiff, non obstante vere-
dicto, or wby there should not be a new trial. The action
was brought on the part of the National Bank of Ireland
against the defendants as acceptors of a bill of ex-
change, drawn by a person named Patrick Keegan,
payable to his own order at two months' date, for 200/., en_
dorsed by him to the plaintiff, and accepted by the defendants,
who were merchants at Liverpool. The defendants pleaded
that Keegan was in the habit of shipping goods from Ireland
by the City of Dublin Steam-packet Company
lfyoranL madediad-
vancesvfrearupdooul,
consigned and deliverable to his order—that on
gthueesdteiolniveKryeein..
Dublin of such goods, Keegan was in the habit of receiving
from the Steam-packet Company a bill of lading, which he
forwarded with a bill of exchange for the amount to the Na-
tional
tßanko t
hot of
aa
billm Ireland,amount
—1 atdwhi
ail:
tgo
i,
nti not severalhwehiicnhst
ah instancesnecefalin se
gan prepared
a
ofthe bill of
lading the same
lently affixed the name of the agent of the Steam-packet Com-
pany, he having no goods in their stores at the time. Now he
(Sir Wm. Follett) apprehended that the plea was bad. The
defendants were the acceptors of a bill drawn by Keegan and
cas
endorsed to a third party, and in such es the acceptors were
the parties liable. The National Bank of Ireland had given
opportunityvalu e fo
ars tthh o
eebfirlilas tohs Bank,ec therta
ascertaining
which
drawer,ing th b
andt herya genuinenesshadt
ie
preciselyed no fraud on the
defendants in the case.
The COURT granted the rule. ..-
THE QUEEN V. SULLIVAN AND OTHERS.

Mr. PLATT said this was an indictment for a conspiracy
tried before Lord Denman at the last Middlesex Sittings_
Verdict, Guilty. He now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had, on
the ground that after the Jury had been sworn and the
proceedings commenced, one of the Jurors rose and stated
that he was on the Grand Jury who found the Bill. It was a
doctrine well laid down in English law, that a man shall not
be convicted, except on the oaths of 24 of his fellow-subjects-
-12 of the inquest by whom the Bill was found, and 12, the
jury before whom the case was tried. The Learned Gentle-
man referred to 4th volume of Blackstone's Commentaries,
page
withr
Lord3e
foe 6, and
rDO
nEc NemtoAotNht
he
said,er /le 1 lot.hst Orht
reui tci etiso point
nn support
owf a
so
juries,
f sootf his i
tus
cthheimportanceargument.
was
unwilling to come to any decision without looking into the
statutes. Judgment deferred.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
FINLAY V. GIBBON.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS
moved to set aside the verdict in
this case, which was for the defendant. The action, which
,dwaats
bthroeuglahtteagNaliariisdtsttohneedeAfesnsidzaenst bee
wPaasttitsroine
ing, and harbouring an apprentice. The apprentice, it was
proved, had been assigned over to the plaintiff. He had been
some years in the business, and therefore his services were
valuable ; they were proved to be worth 255. a week. He ab-
sented himself, and was found in the ship of the defendant, who
was his uncle. He was taken before a Magistrate, and
escaped punishment, on a promise to behav3 better in
future. He went back to his master, but did not long remain ;
and it was proved that he went a voyage in his incle's ship,
for which he was paid wages. The plaintiff claimed compen-
sation for the loss of the apprentice's services. For the de
fendant the lad himself was called, who said that he first went
to his mother's, and afterwards to the Captain of his uncle's
ship, and went to sea. He also said that his vaster had
threatened him on the previous night, which fact aveared to
make a considerable impression upon the mints of both
Judge and Jury. It however was shown by witnesses
that all the plaintiff said was,
4‘ You are here to be a
witness against
me ; see that you speak the trith." He
(Mr. Sergeant Andrews) did not think he had made out
any case of inticing, but the evidence was conclusive as to the
harbouring, for it was shown that tie defendant hal entered
into an agreement to pay 31. 10s. for the plaintiff's los, which
agreement he afterwards refused to perform.
Rule Nisi granted.
PAW BON AND ANOTHER V. CHAPMAN AND OTHER.
This was ass action for the recovery of the sum of 299,155.4 d.
the balance of an account for work and labour done, ind ma-
terials used in the construction of an iron omnibus. The ac-
tion was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the sittings
after last Term, when a verdict was found for the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS now moved for a rule to shov cause
why that verdict should not be set aside and a new dal had
on the ground of misdirection. The late specul.ativ4 times
gave rise to the British Patent Safety Conveyancmg :nd Li-
censing Company, of which the defendants were Diectors.
The principal personage in the Company was a Mr.
Renagle, who was a complete genius, and w o had
recently taken out a patent for a ticivY irgn ennibus)

which had much merit, but unfortunately it was only fitted for
show. There was nothing of utility about it, for it was so
constructed that it was impossible that it could ever be used.
The Company entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to
construct the omnibus under the direction of Mr, Renagle ; the;
went on and gave satisfaction to that gentleman until
he determined to make a trial of its powers before it was
finished. It was taken out, but the moment it got upon the
stones it fell to pieces, and it was proved on the trial that so
faulty, so vicious was its principle, that such must necessarily
be the result of such an experiment. After that experiment
nothing was done to the omnibus ; it never was finished, and the
Company was knocked up; therefore the plaintiffs were driven to
Iseek their remuneration in a Court of Law. He at the trial gave
evidence of an order to discontinue working on the omnibus
on the part of the defendant, but his Lordship—than whom
the Bar had not a more formidable opponent when he took up
a point—(Laughter)—put it to the Jury strongly against him.
The COURT said that evidence was for the Jury, and they
having found (properly they thought) that there bad been
no order to discontinue, the plaintiffs, according to the contract,
had no cause of action until the omnibus was finished.
Rule ',fused.