The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The Vicw.CnaNcnuoit was occupied the whole morning with the
arguments in the part heard case of Semple v. Semple, which were not
terminated when our Reporter left.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The MASTER of the Rotts this morning took consent petitions.
EVELYN V. EVELYN.

The object of the petition in this case was, that for the purposes of
the Tithe Commutation Act, tho 6th and 7th William IV., chap. 71,
the defendant who was one of the guardians of the infant plaintiff,
might, in conjunction with Mr. Bray, the receiver of the estates, be
substituted for the petitioner, who was another of the guardians, and
might execute all deeds, acts, &c., necessary for carrying the provisions of
the Tithe Commutation Act into effect, in respect of tithes in the parish
of Wotton in Surrey. Mr. Evelyn, one of the guardians, being an in-
cumbent of the living of Wotton, with respect to which the commutation
was about to be effected, have a sort of double character vested in him,
which rendered it necessary to make the application to the Court.
Lord LLNGDALE—According to the Act of Parliament the two
guardians would have to act.

Mr. KlNnEasmtv—Yes, my Lord ; and in this case, of course, with.
out the authority of the Court he could not cease to act ; but here he
would be acting in a fiduciary character, and as an incumbent, and the
object of the petition is to get over that difficulty.
Lord LANGDALE—It's an object which ought to effected, if it can be
effected ; but the real thing we have in view is, that the commutation
of tithes may be valued for all time to come, so that no future incumbent
may be able hereafter to demand tithes in kind. After some further
observations, his Lordship said he would consider it.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

SLANDER.-SNEWING V. TEMPRELL.

This was an action brought to recover damages for injury done to
the plaintiff's character, by imputing to him an unnameable offence. It
appeared that the defendant is a retired publican, anh the plaintiff, his
tenant, occupying the house formerly kept by the defendant himself.
The alleged slander was uttered at a public house in the Hackney-road,
in the presence of a number of persons who were taking refreshments,
after attending an inquest. The landlord, Mr. Stacey, was
one of the party, and entered into conversation with the de-
fendant respecting the affairs of the Licensed Victuallers'
Society, of which they were members. The defendant asked Stacey,
did he know whom they had got upon the Board ? and added that they
had Snewing, who was a Stacey communicated the conversa-
tion to the Board of the Licensed 'Victuallers' Society, who appointed an
evening for Snewing and Temprell to appear before them, for the pur.
pose of giving Temprell an opportunity of establishing the charge
against one of their body, or to enable Snewing to vindicate himself.
The plaintiff attended, but the defendant did not appear, and the Board
advised the plaintiff to bring this action.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD addressed the Jury for the defendant in
mitigation of damages, on the ground that the defendant had not
originated the accusation, but it originated with a man named Ward,
who had since died.

The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict far
the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

REYNOLDS V. HOWARD.

This was an aetion brought far the purpose of recovering damages
for an arrest without probable cause. _ .

Mr. EIt.LK (with whom were Mr. Wordsworth and Mr. Henderson)
stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff was a schoolmaster, who had
accepted a bill of exchange for 321. Bs., drawn by a friend of his, named
Lamb, who died before the bill became due. It found its way into the
hands of the defendant, an attorney ; and when it became due, on the
sth of Febuary, 1837, the defendant commenced proceedings upon it, it
not having been paid. On the tith, Mr. Phillips, the plaintiffs attorney,
waited upon the defendant in order to pay the bill and costs, but
when it was presented it purported to have been drawn by Loveless,
and indorsed by Lamb to the defendants; it also bore the name of
plaintiff as acceptor. Mr. Phillips did not pay the bill as it was not
the one instructed respecting; he saw the plaintiff, and afterwards
gave notice to the defendant that the acceptance was a forgery, and
that the proceedings would be at the peril of defendant. Matters re-
mained in this way until the 15th February, when the plaintiff was ar-
rested, and was not liberated until he had given a bail bond. The
arrest was calculated to injure him in his business, and he wanted the
verdict of a Jury, in order to set him right with the world. He had
been put to considerable expense, which he hoped would be now re.
turned to him.

Lord ABINGEtt did not consider that even if the statement of the
Learned Counsel were made out that there would be any case for the
Jury. Surely a man had reasonable and probable cause for arresting a
man, whose name was attached to a bill as acceptor. Unless they could
induce the Jury to think differently, they could not obtain a verdict.
Mr. DUE considered that the defendant having had notice that the
acceptance was a forgery, it was his duty to have made inquiries as to
the handwriting; he would show that such inquiries had been made, and
if it turned out that the parties all said that it was not the hand.writing
of the plaintiff then he would submit that he had no probable expecta-
tion of obtaining a verdict, and therefore ought not to have arrested ;
he would further show that the defendant abandoned the action, and had
paid all Lie plaintiff's costs in it.
Lord ABINGER—You may go to the Jury, if you like; but I will tell
them my opinion as I have told you.
Mr. EaLE then called Mr. rhillipsiwho stated the circumstances as in
the opening. In his cross-examination he said he had never seen the
other uill, and when he saw the one in question, if ha had not known
any circumstances to throw suspicion upon the bill, he would have said it
was accepted by the plaintiff.
The Learned Judge again said there was an end of the cause ; but
Mr. Eat it said he had no discretion in the case. He would tender
his witnesses, and it would be for his Lordship to take what cJurse he
pleased. He then called Mr, Knowles, the father of Sheridan Knowles,
and another gentleman, who said the acceptance to the bill was not in
the hand.writing of the
.plaintiff
This was the case for the plaintiff. . .

His LORDSHIP, without calling upon Mr: KELLY (who, with Mr.
Bats Tow, were for the defendant), summed up to the Jury, and gave it
as his opinion that the plaintiff had made out no case for a verdict.
The Jury consulted for a few moments, and then returned a verdict
for the defendant.