The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-09 00:00:00

fresh evidence ought to be taken, as well as of support-
ing the case.
This course was ultimately adopted, and the case
stood over.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ATKINSON V. SHARP.-SLANDER.

This was an action for slander, tried before Mr. Baron
Platt, at the York assizes, in which the plaintiff had re-
ceived 40s. damages.
Mr. Overend now moved for a new trial on two
grounds. The declaration set forth and complained that
the defendant had said to the plaintiff, " Thou art a
d-d rogue and a thief. Thereat got John Cowling's
brass." To which the only plea was not guilty. The jury,
before arriving at their verdict, asked the learned judge
what sum would carry costs, mid he replied "405.,"
upon which they at once found for that amount. It was
now submitted under these circumstances that the defen-
dant was entitled to a sew trial ; first, on the ground
that the learned judge ought to have explained to the
jury the law of felony as applicable to a ca-e of " find-
ing," for it might be that the plaintiff might have found
property and might be told that he had kept it without
imputing felony ; and, secondly, because the inquiry of
the jury as to costs ought not to have been answered.
They ought to have assessed the damages regardless of
costs, and but for the repl;• of the learned judge they would
not have given more than nominal damages.
The Court thought there was not sufficient ground
for disturbing the verdict. Most judges declined an-
swering such inquiries from the jury, but it was dis-
cretionary on their part. It would not afford ground
for a new trial that the judge had answered the jury on
a question of law. As regarded the second point, it was
left to the jury to say which of the two versions they be-
lieved, that of the plaintiff or defendant, and it was pro-
perly so left ; therefore the rule must be refused.
Rule refused accordingly.

CONSISTORY COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
HARRADEN V. HARRADEN.
This was a divorce snit, promoted by the wife against
the husband, by reason of adultery.
There being no defence, the facts were not gone into.
The court pronounced for the divorce.
GONZALEZ V. GONZALEZ.
This was a suit for separation, instituted by the wife
against the husband, on the ground of cruelty and
adultery.
There was no appearance for the husband.
The learned judge pronounced for the divorce, and
condemned the husband in costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
IN BE LAMBOURY.

Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, offered no opposi
tion, but recommended the bankrupt for an immediate
certificate, on account of his attention to the estate sines
his bankruptcy.
Mr. Lawrance, for the bankrupt, called attention to
the large amount of property given up, and to the time
(ten months) which had elapsed since the bankruptcy.
His Honour granted a second-class certificate.
IN RE RICHARDSON.

F. G. Richardson, timber-merchant, of Limehouse,
applied for his certificate.
Mr. Murray, for the assignees, called attention to the
large preponderance of expenses and losses over profits.
Mr. Harvey, on behalf of the bankrupt, attributed
the failure to the large amount of bad debts ; but for this
the expenditure would have been within the profits.
The books had been well kept, and the bankrupt's con-
duct since the failure had been ♦ery praiseworthy.
His Honour said the expediture had certainly been
enormous ; there was no other charge against the bank-
rupt. As there were other very meritorious features in
the case, he would grant an immediate certificate of the
second class.