The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, DEL% 4.
CHARNEAU V, RILEY.
This bill was filed by the next of kin of Robert Berth°.
mier against the defendant, William Felix alley, to have
set aside a certain indenture of release, ev4ecuted to Riley,
dated in March, 1834, and to have the personal estate of
the testator distributed. The bill PAlemed that the testator
Berthomier, at the time of his death, was domiciled in
France, and the answer alleged that he was domiciled in
England.
Mr. COOPER, who appeared for the plaintiff, admitted
the allegation in the answer that the testator at the time of
his death was domiciled in England. He, therefore, trusted
that he might be suffered to proceed on that understanding
as if the fact had been so originally stated in the bill. If
not, ho trusted that he might have leave to withdraw the
allegation, or to alter the record, or to file a supplemental bill.
Air. PEMBERTON, who appeared for the defendant, said
that he could not agree to such a course of proceeding. He
would consent to allow a reference to the Master, for the
purpose of inquiring into the question of the domicile.
His LORDSHIP said he could not allow the bill t j be
amended, but he would direct a reference to the Ma;ter to
inquire into the question of the domicile, and as to w:no were
the next of kin. The case might be mentioned again this
day week.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, D„. 4.
BRIGGS V. AYNSWORTH.
Our report of this trial yesterday left. klie Jury in deli-
beration. On their return to the Co•ar;; a verdict was re-
corded for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 4.
DALTON AND ANOTHER V. GIB.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered. The
action was brought by the plaintiffs, linen-drapers and silk-
mercers in Regent-street, to recover 251. for goods which
had been purchased of them by the defendant, and 31. odd
for interest, to which the defendant had pleaded that she,
was an infant. The question was, whether the articles
such as a satin mantilla, a white muslin dress, &c., which
the defendant had purchased of the plaintiffs, were ne-
cessary and proper for her, the law declaring that an infant
shall only be liable for such things as are necessary. On
the part of the defendant, it was contended that there was
no evidence that the defendant was possessed of any pro-
perty ; and if she were not, then these articles could only
be regarded as extravagances.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case, and
the Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 251.

EXCHEQUER COURT, DEc. 4.
HUGHES V. QUENTIN, BART.
This action was brought to recover compensation for
damage done to the cart of the plaintiff, by the improper
driving of the defendant, on the Bth of July.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 30/.
FRASER V. BUNN.
The plaintiff is a singer, and brought Lis action against
the lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, for breach of agreement.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 371.,
beyond 9/. paid into Court by Mr. Bunn.

NSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. fi.
TIIE BAIL CLAUSE.
At the rising of the Court yesterday, Mr. CooKE ap-
plied, on the part of a prisoner in Dorchester Gaol, to be
discharged on bail. The Learned Counsel referred to the
several clauses, and said A Commissioner on Circuit had as
much power as the Court.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said, with respect to bail, it
was not so. There was no power in the Act under which
the Court could assist persons in country prisons, unless the
sureties came to the Court in London. He regretted the
clause was defective. It had been reviewed with delibera-
tion by all the Commissioners, and they had come to a C 011.• elusion on the subject.—Application refused.