The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
Williams.)
PAYNE V. RYMER.
This was an action, part of which had been
beard yesterday, to -recover compensation in conse-
quence of loss sustained by him in taking a certain
business, of which defendant had falsely and maliciously
misrepresented the value. The defendant pleaded not
guilty. Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Collier were for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. J.
Brown for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant bad formerly kept a cigar
and tobacconist's business in the neighbourhood of Fen-
church-street, and which was carried on under the name
of Barron and Company. Some time back defendant
negotiated the sale of it to the plaintiff, alleging that the
sole reason he had for parting with it was upon account
of his wife's ill-health, and that he was about to reside in
the country. He represented to the plaintiff that during
the previous year he had drawn 1,5001., and produced his
books to prove it. Under these circumstances, the
plaintiff finally decided upon taking the business, and
paid 5001. for the good will, and an additional sum for
fixtures, the defendant entering into a bond by which
he bound himself not to enter into business in the same
line. The plaintiff upon taking possession of the busi-
ness found that there was scarcely any trade at all at-
tached to it, and that he had been completely de-
ceived, the books and general account given by the de-
fendant being false.
This morning, after some proceedings and consulta-
tion between the learned counsel, the defendant con-
sented to a verdict for 3001. being entered for the plain-
tiff.

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE LEA RIVER V. THE GOVERNOR AND TRUSTEES OP

THE NEW RIVER COMPANY.

Lord Campbell gave judgment in this case, which
has been partially mentioned in this paper.
A question had arisen out of certain proceedingstaken
by the Lea River Company against the New River
Company, for having abstracted water from one of their
sluices, contrary to the powers given them by their act
of Parliament.
Lord Campbell said that the New River Company
had acted in contravention of the statute, and gave
judgment for the Lea River Company.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Undersheriff Bluebell.)
OUTLAWRY—SEIZURE BY THE CROWN OF A PENSION OF
3,000/. PER ANNUM—CHAFFERS V. COLVILLE.
This was an inquiry under a process of outlawry
against the defendant, at the snit of the Crown. The
writ was directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex to seize all
the property in his bailiwick belonging to the defendant,
and hold the same in trust for the Crown.
Evidence was then adduced that the defendant, Ed-
ward John Colville, was entitled to a pension of 3,0001.
per annum from the Court of Chancery, and an order
of the Court above was put in stopping the payment of
any amounts standing to the credit of the Accountant-
General in Chancery, in the hands of the Lords of the
Treasury or the Governor and Company of the Bank of
England, on behalf of the defendant, until the present
writ was returned.
The learned Under-Sheriff, in directing the jury, said
that the defendant having been outlawed, the whole
of his property, however large, became forfeited to the
Crown. In the present case the proceedings were
taken by the Crown, on behalf of the plaintiff, who was
a creditor, and until that debt was paid, the property
would be held by the Sheriff on behalf of the Crown.
The jury would have no difficulty in coming to the con-
clusion that the defendant was entitled to the pension in
question, and would give their verdict accordingly. He
would observe that as this inquiry was under an order
of the Court above, if, in the present stage of the pro-
ceedings there was any irregularity, the Court above
could rectify it.
A Juryman asked the amount of the debt.
The learned Under-Sheigf said 2381. ; but it was
immaterial, 501., 5,000/., oi any other amount ; the out-
lawry forfeited the whole of the outlawry property.
The Jury gave a verdict in accordance with the direc-
tion of the Court.