The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-15 00:00:00

OWEN V. SMITE.

Mr. CHITTY stated the substance of the declaration, which
was in trover fora tilbury.
• Mr. MARRYAT stated that the plaintiff had bought the til-
bury in question from a person named Birkins, had taken it to
Cheltenham, and had sent it to the defendant to be taken care of
for him, when Mr. Birkins, being apprised of the circumstance
claimed a right to the tilbury, and indemnified Mr. Smith for,
his refusal to deliver it to the owner.

Proof was then given on the part of the plaintiff that he sent
the vehicle to Mr. Smith, in London, and had since demanded
it in vain. _ _

Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, contended that the whole
was a swindling transaction, and that Mr. Birkins had a right
to reclaim the property out of the possession of which he had
been deluded. He had sold this gig and two horses to Mr.
Owen, who went also by the names of Hoare and Stephens, on
condition that they should not be removed from his premises
until they were paid for. Mr. Owen, under pretence of driving
to the Tower, and. of letting his brother try the saddle-horse,
obtained the carriage and horses from the servants of Mr. Bir-
kins, and then went off tb Cheltenham, where he sold the horses
by auction, and offered to sell the tilbury.
It was proved in evidence, that the plain tiffwrote to Smith under
the name of Stephens; but it appeared that the tilbury and the
horse first Old were paid for by a bill at one month, and that it
was m order too indite Mr. Birkins to sell the second horse, that
Owen promised to take away neither the carriage nor horses un-
til all were paid for. Birkins himself was called, but having ac-
knowledged that he employed the attorney for the defence, was
dismissed as incompetent to become a witness. ,
On this evidence, the LORD Cu !Er JUSTICE held that the
plaintiff was, in point of law, entitled to recover. Had there
been no bill given, and the sale of all the property had been
made on condition that none of it should be removed until all
was paid for, Birkins might have reclaimed it on breach of the
condition ; but the subsequent promise could not revive in him
the right of which he was once divested. There were circum-
stances of great suspicion ; and as the value of the carriage had
been fixed at between 30 and 40 guineas, the Jury would give
as little beyond the smaller sum as they pleased.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 321.
LAMPON V. CORKE.

This was an action on a promissory note for 401. At the
time it was drawn, a release was agreed on, and the note re-
tamed until the release was executed, which recited that the 401.
was paid. It appeared in evidence that after the note was deli-
vered to the plaintiff, it was altered by the insertion of the words
"or order," by the defendant's attorney. This
The LORD CHIEF JusTict held made it clearly void; and
he further held, that the-xelease; though it would not have bar-
red an action on a valid note, was a complete answer to an ac-
count stated. He, however, directed the Jury to find a verdict
for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move to set it
aside, and with an intimation that in point of law he must
succeed.

Mr. GURNEY and Mr. ALEXANDER were for the plaintiff;
and NIL PULLEIi for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fts.l4..
. CHAMPION AND ANOTHER V. TERRY, • '
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 001. There
were counts in the declaration on goodi sold- and delivered. A

quantity of raisins having been sold by the plaintiffs to the de-
fendant, through the medium of their traveller, a bill, in pay-
ment of the raisins, was with others put into the Post-office by
the plaintiffs' agent, in a letter directed to the plaintiffs, which
never arrived at its destination ; and the defendant now refused
to pay the debt on the ground that the bill was not proved to.
have been destroyed, and might therefore be brought against
him at a future time. An indemnity was offered, and refused.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE in his charge informed the
Jury, that the defence was good in law, unless they thought that
the plaintiffs were entitled to recover on the counts for goods
sold and delivered.

The Jury found for the defendant.
--...

ARCHES' COURT, FEB. 14.

IN THE MARQUIS OF DONEGAL AGAINST MAY, FALSELY

CALLED THE MARCHIONESS OF DONEGAL.

This cause, it will be recollected, was appealed from the Con-
sistory Court of London ; pending the proceedings in which
Court, the next of kin protested against its jurisdiction, by rea-
son of the residence of the Marchioness of Donegal in Ireland,
and of collusion between the noble parties.
Sir JOHN NicHoLL, in pronouncing upon this appeal, ob-
served, that it was possible there might be grounds for such a
charge, although most undoubtedly there was nothing to prove
it before the Court. But on the other hand these noble parties
might very naturally be anxious to ascertain,by a solemn legal de-
cision, what was their real and actual condition, more especially
looking to the great interests which were here at stake. The Court
would confess, however, that the present suit, upon the face
of it, did seem to be a friendly one, though several reasons might
easily be alleged to shew why it was not; and one strong pre-
sumption why this was not a friendly suit was to be found
in the circumstance of the other parties having been cited to
see proceedings ; of their being thus afforded the opportunity
and means of probing, examining, and sifting every matter
connected with this suit to the bottom. Whether the parties.
in remainder might or might not institute another suit against;
the Marquis and Marchioness elsewhere, it was not now ne-
cessary for the Court to inquire. It was, however, fully ne-
cessary that it should be jealous and vigilant in watching these
proceedings, so far as the noble parties were concerned; but,
was no such jealousy, was no such vigilance necessary in the
case of the other parties who had been cited to see the pro-
ceedings ? They had great interests to look after, in any event
of the present suit; and delay alone was an object of the utmost
consequence with them. The witnesses who could be brought
forward to depose to the age of Lady Donegal, at the time of her
marriage, must be very old, seeing that she was said to have
been born as far back as the year 1774 ; which was now nearly
50 years ago. By the death of these witnesses, pending the
suit, the real truth of the case, and the ends of justice, might
equally be defeated. It was evident to the Court, that if it
should pronounce this marriage null and void, the parties cited
would have a great interest in delaying that sentence; and upon
all the grounds which had been stated, the Court thought that the
Judge of the Consistory Court had done perfectly right in
holding that he had jurisdiction, and particularly in not stop-
ping the principal cause, as instituted there, in consequence of
the assertion of this appeal. The Court, therefore, pronounced
against the appeal, and it thought itself bound to add, with
costs.

[This cause will therefore be again continued in the Consii..
tory Court of London.]

DREADFUL FlRE.—Thursday morning, about
one o'clock, the hill part of Lincoln was terri-
fied by a fire which broke out in the stable of the
White Hart Inn.- At a late hour on the Wednes-
day, the cries of a goat in the stable pierced the
still night far and wide, making a prodigious out-
cry, and manifesting alarm with a degree of intel-
ligence scarcely less expressive than language
and reason. Some persons coming along Eastgate,
hearing the noise, naited to ascertain the cause,
and soon perceived it. The alarm was given,
and most of the Gentlemen in the neighbour-
hood pressed forward to give aid—engines were
speedily procured, the Minister's alarm-bell was
rung, and the utmost exertions were made to
rescue the poor animals that were in the midst of
the blazing litter and rafters. Three valuable
hoises of the posting kind were destroyed; and
five others Much injured, notwithstanding the
most powerful exertions of all present to take
them out of the stable.

SHOCKING ACCIDENT.—Late on the evening of
Saturday last, as some people were passing by a
house where an old woman lived, in Robert's
Wynd, Falkirk, their attention was attracted by
an uncommon smell of burning issuing from the
door; being anxious to learn the cause they
forced it open, when horrible to relate, on enter-
ing the house, they found the old woman lying
on the floor, in the agonies of death, with her
clothes burnt to a cinder, and her body scorched
in a shocking manner.—(Edinburgh Courant,
Feb. 11.)

On Tuesday two sturdy beggars were brought
before Mr. Alderman HEYGATE, at Guildhall, by
the constables belonging to the Mendicity So-
ciety. It appeared that one of them had been a
few days ago referred to the Mendicity Office,
and had been sent to the Society's Establishment
at Paddington, to be set to work ; but he had
neglected to go there, and resumed his former
trade. They were both committed to Giltapur-
street Compter. The constables who appre-
hended these men informed the Alderman, that
the Mendicity Society were now prepared to give
employment to every able-bodied mendicant who
came before them.

About a dozen hackney-coachmen were yes-
terday summoned before the Magistrate at
Queen-square, for obstructing the public high-
way, and refusing to depart when requested to
do so by the officers, when the KING was going
to open the Session of Parliament. Some of the
defendants were exceedingly abusive to the con-
stables, insisting upon their right to draw up in.
the line of procession.—These were fined in tlte•
full penalty, 101., and others, who were less abu-
sive, in 51.; but those who it appeared came
there through ignorance, and who willingly went
away when desired, had the penalty mitigated,
to 4Qs.