The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-06 00:00:00

LENT ►SSIZES.

MIDLAND cffictftir.
(Before Sir J. A PARR. and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
Northam2ton—Monda yi Feb. 26.
ttrifeh
LitMolir end eitY—SaluftlaY, Mardi 0.
Nottingham and Town—Thursday, Marc't S.
Derby—Tuesday, March 13.
Leluster and Borough—Saturday, March 17.
COVentty and WarWick---Thursday, March 22.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.
(Before Lord *l)l7.xst A!: and gr, Justice BOSANQUET.)
.March 1, at the Castle of Winchester.
Wilts---V..iddriesrlaf, Mal-eh 1, at. Ne..v Sarum.
Dorset—Tuesday, March 13, at Dot:tester.
Devon—Saturday, March 17, at the Castiell'Acter:
City of Bxeter—Same day, at the Guildhall of the
Cornwall--,Saturday, March 24, at Launceston.
Somerset—Saturday, March 31, at the Castle of Taunton.

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lone CHANcrmoR at this day in Lincoln's Inn Hall, and pro-
ceeded With the hearing of appea's,

LEYCESTER.

Ills Lordship was occupied the whole morning with the arguments in
this case, which came before his Lordship upon appeal from the dcr.ision
of the present Master of the Rolls, decl ,ring that the appellant was entitled
to the arrears of the annuities granted by Sir Roger Palmer, but without
interest. From the statement of Mr. Wakefield, who, together with Mr.
Spence and Mr. Wright, were counsel for the appellant, It appeared
the late Sir Roger Palmer becoming embarrassed in 1809, granted no
less than twenty-eight annuities, all of which became vested for a
valuable consideration. Finding that he could not obtain payment of
the arrears of the annuities, he filed his bill for the purpose of having
the declaration of the Court that he was entitled to the benefit of the
annuities and for a receiver. When the case came before the present
Master of the Court, he pronounced the order now apt e ded from.

Mr. Wakefield had not concluded his address on be:lalf of the ap.
pellant when our Reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY.-THIS DAY.

Motions of no public interest occupied His Honour the whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
TUF. QUEEN V. 611 kW AND OTHERS.

This wag an indictment for an assault, and after the Jury ha I teen
GWOCII,

Mr. EaLE said the matter had been discussed between the prosecutor
and the defendants. arid the Court would not be troubled with the de-
tails of the case.

Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the defendants, said the prosecutor had acted
wisely in withdrawing the matter, and a verdict was then taken for the
defendants.

TEDDY V. DODD.

Mr. ERI.e stated the case. It was an action brought to recover com-
pensation for several articles, the property of the plaintiff, which the
defendant, it was alleged, had wrongfully converted to his own use. lhe
plaintiff had sold the Fishmongers' Arms public-house to a person
named Ball, and had lent him a bed, bedstead, bolsters, blankets, coun-
terpanes, and other articles, to the value of 71 ; when Ball sold the con-
cern to the defendant the property still remained in the house, and Mr.
Dodd had refused to give them up, although at the time he took the
house he had received notice that they were the property of the plaintiff:
John Blowe deposed that he was living with the plaintiff in the Fish-
mongers' Arms public-house, which was afterwards sold to Ball, and
subsequently to the defendant Doid. When Ball took the house there
was a bedstead, bedding, &c. left in one of the apartments. They were
not sold to Ball. Atter calling upon the defendant several times, he at
length said, if they wcie not valued by his broker to him, he would
give them up. When the order was procured from the broker the de-
fendant refused to give them up.
Mr. KELLv, for the defendant, said that he had no objection to a
juror being withdrawn, and the articles would be delivered up to
the plaintiff on being identified.
It was finally arranged that a conditional verdict should be entered
for the plaintiff, in the event of the articles not being delivered up.

FRAMPTON V. CIIAMPNEV, BART.
This was al action to recover the amount of two bills of exchange,
one for 301., and the other for 651., drawn and accepted by the slefen-
dant Sir Thomas Mostyn Champney, Bart. The action was brought
by Mr. Frampton, a solicitor, as executor of his brother, James Alex.
ander Frampton, also a solicitor, to whom the bills had been passed.
The defendant had pleaded that he was not liable, having been dis-
charged from the Insolvent Debtors' Court in the year 1835.
Mr. CHANDLER, for the defendant, upon whom the affirmative plea
rested, addressed the Jury, and observed that the whole question turned
upon the sufficiency of the entry in the defendant's schedule, in which
the plaintiff had been described as Frampton and Co., solicitors of New
Inn, and the debt set down, with interest, as 1081. 14s. 6d. Mr.
Frampton was certainly a solicitor of New Inn, and was in partnership
with two other gentlemen, but the firm went under the name of Home,
Frampton, and Loftus.
An officer of the Insolvent Court produced the defendant's schedule,
in which the entry was as defendant's Counsel had described it,
" Messrs. Frampton and Co„ solicitors, New Inn, 1081. 14s. Od."
Mr. LOFTUS, one of the firm of Home, Frampton, and Loftus, de-
posed that they had received a notice from Sir Thomas Champney in
1835, when he was about to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act. He
knew of no debt being due to the firm by the defendant.
Mr. ERLE having addressed the Jury for the plaintiff,

Lord DaNMAN left it to the Jury to say, whether that description in
the schedule of the defendant was a correct and proper description of
the plaintiff, and of the debt due to him,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
HUTTON V. KNIGHTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of Robert
Adams, an oil and colourman of Leather-lane, to recover possession of
certain goods, to the amount of 285/., which had been fraudulently
passed to the defendant by a deed of sale, previous to Adams having
taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act.

A (Ter several witnesses had been examined,
Lord DENMAN said it did not appear to him that there was anything
fraudulent in the sale which had taken place. The defendant had merely
acted as every prudent man would, in obtaining some security for the
debt due him.
The Jury returned a verdict fur the defendant.

COURT OF EXCISE.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Commissioners Sir JOHN MORTLOCK, HOG. B. PAGET, and HART

DAVIS, Esq.)

The Court was occupied the greater part of the morning in hearing
what are technically called called "complaints," which are applications
by auctioneers for the return of the duty paid on saes, which, in con-
sequence •f defective titles the purchasers have refused to complete.
Several publicans appeared to answer complaints laid against them,
for having in their stock rum under the legal strength. As there is no
penalty attached to offences of the above nature, the Court merely con-
demned the spirit seized.

SECONDARIES COURT-(4HIS DAY)

MORDAUNT V. RANKIN.

This was an action to recover from the defendant, who is a surgeon,
residing at Hastings, the sum of 171. 155., for clothes supplied to his son.
After evidence had been adduced, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

SHERIFF'S COURT-(THIS DAY.)

SWIFE V. ABB.

This was action brought to recover the sum of 3401. 17s. 7d., for
goods supplied to the defendant.
It appeared by the evidence that the defendant, who said he was
going abroad, applied to the plaintiff, who agreed to supply him with al
outfit. The goods were to be forwarde Ito Liverpool, and the defendant
was to call and pay the amount, this however he never did, nor did he
go abroad but went to Liverpool and got possession of the property.
No defence being offered the Jury found for the plaintiff.