The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-24 00:00:00

length into the case, ord red the bill to be dismissed
against nil the defendants, with costs, except Roper,
and as to Liu], the bill must be dismissed, but without
costs.

The Court then proceeded to hear petitions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

WILLIAMS V. THE CORPORATION OF EXETER.
In this cause a rule had been obtained, calling upon
the corporation, who are conservators of the Quay at
Exeter, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue
to try if applicant should be reimbursed by an annuity
for being deprived of his office as whartinger of Tops-
ham, near Exeter. It appeared that the duties of the
!Ace had fallen off, and the Commissioners had thought
it proper to dispense with the services of the plaintiff.
The rule was argued at some length this morning.
Mr. ROGERS and Mr. CROWDER were heard at consi.
derable length in opposition to the rule, on the ground
that the plaintiff was not a corporate officer, and ►hat
when the dues fell off and were let by auction, the
corporation were fully and legally entitled to dismiss the
plaintiff without compensation.
Mr. WATSON, on the other hand, contended that the
plaintiff, being appointed by the Corporation, with the
usual formalities, that he was appointed as coroner
and bailiff of the river, and authorised to wear a badge
of office; that he was a corporate officer, and entitled to
the usual compensation under the Act of Parliament.
At the conclusion of the argument the Court granted
tho role for a mandamus.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
FISHWICK V. BILLINGS.
This case was tried in the Salford Hundred Court, on
the 29th Oct. last, and a verdict given for the plaintiff,
for 491. odd.
Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., now moved for a rule calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why there should not be a
sew trial, on the ground of misdirection and the im-
proper rejection of evidence. The action was in trespass
for seising, taking, and carrying away a quantity of corn,
hay, and manure, and converting and disposing of
them to the defendant's own use. The pleas were, first, not
guilty; and secondly,a traverse to the plaintiff's property in
the goods. The pleadings in the Salford Court are carried
on in precisely the same way as in any of the superior
courts at Westminster. The plaintiff had occupied a
farm called the Cross Hall Farm, under Lord Derby,
and in November, 1848, ho was two years' rent in arrear.
In that month the bailiff of Lord Derby distrained all
the goods upon the farm for the rent in arrear; and
en the day on which the distress was made the plaintiff
entered into an agreement with his landlord, requesting
the latter to forbear selling the goods until the follow-
ing February, to enable him to discharge the rent, and
the landlord agreeing at the same time to the goods
remaining in the plaintiff's possession at his own
proper costs until February, when he was to
abandon them, together with the premises, to
his landlord. In the January following the
plaintiff applied to Lord Derby's agent for permission to
cell the goods, and it would appear from the evidence
that the agent said he might sell all the stock upon the
farm, except the goods in question, which were some
'ay, corn, and manure; and accordingly, in the month of
January the plaintiff sold a portion of the goods, and
before February had arrived he had left the farm. It
was proposed, on the part of the defendant, at the trial
TV put in evidence the agreement in question, but the
Judge rejected it on the ground of its being unstamped.
Ji'le (Mr. Martin) moved also for the rule on the ground
that trespass was not maintainable, and that the remedy
should have been by trover.
The COURT granted the rule on both points.