The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

had preceded " The Mechanics' Chronicle" in the press ; and
on some explanation being asked of the change, the Lord Chief
Justice said, " Oh, they have only turned the nation into a
Mechanics' institute." (Great laughter.).
Mr. GURNEY, for the plaintiff, replied, and urged that al-
though, in some matters, Keene and Wood might have a joint
interest, they had none in this affair, and that the statement of
any fraudulent scheme was unsustained by proof.
The boRD CHIEF JUSTICE left the case to the Jury on
the single question, whether at the time when tie business was
done by Mr. Wooler's orders, Keene was in -partnership with
Wood.

The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the de•
Pendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 5.
HICKS V. CLARKE ANT) ANOI HER.

This was an action of trespass. The plaintiff is an attorney,
and some years since conducted a cause in which the defendant,
Clarke, and his brother, were some of the parties. In the
course of that suit Mr. Hicks received some papers from other
parties, on condition of giving them up when required. To this
condition his clients consented, hut, in some tune after, they
satight to possess themselves of those papers, and the plaintiff
refused to give them. up. He also.gave up the conducting of
their cause. In the course of some time the defendants
forcibly entered the plaintiff's chambers, and endeavoured to
take away some papers, which the plaintiff did not allow them
to do. The defendant also imputed improper conduct to the
plaintiff with respect to the conducting their cause. The tres-
pass complained of was, the forcible entrance, although the
principal object of the action was to vindicate the plaintiff's
conduct from all imputations of impropriety with respect to
the cause in which he had been engaged, and in refusing its
management.
__

Illr:'Sergeant WILDE, in the early pdrt of the cause, offered
to take a verdict for nominal damages only, if the defendants
would admit that they had acted wrong, and that the conduct
of the plaintiff was without impeachment as far as he was con-
cerned for them.

Mr. Sergeant 'AWES, for the defendants, refused to' make
any such admission, and .having addressed himself at some
length to the merits of the case, he submitted that though a
verdict might go for , the plaintiff, yet there could be no more
than nominal damages.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (having in the course of the
trial made several ineffectual attempts to shorten the case and
save time) observed, in his charge, on the expediency of con-
suming the time of the suitors of the Court with a cause of this
description. There would have been an end of this case long ago
and the plaintiff would be content with nominal damages if the
defendants had instructed their Counsel to make the acknowledg.
meat required. If there would now be more than nominal dama-
ges, the defendants would have to blame themselves. Knowing
nothing of the -plantiff but from what appeared in this cause,
his Lordship said he was bound to say his conduct towards these
parties was extremely correct.
The. Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.
JENKINS v. BIDDITLPHS (SISTERS).
This was an action against the Sheriff of Hereford, for com-
pensation-for damages sustained by the plaintiff's in consequence
of his negligence in making a false return to a writ issued •
against them._ The circumstances of the case were these:
'The plaintiff's (two sisters) held some property adjoining the
estate of a person named James, with whom they had some
legal controversy ) • James issued writs against them, to which
writs he returned non est ihventus, and in consequence of this
return, the plaintiffs in the present action were outlawed, their
estate was seized by the Crown, from whence -it came into the
possession of -James. At the time the return was made, one
sister was living within 4 miles of Hereford, and the other was
actually in the custody of the Sheriff in Hereford jail.
For the defence it was urged that James, when he put the
writs into the hands of the Sheriff, informed him that no such
persons were residing within his bailiwick, and that he must of
necessity.return non,est inrentns..
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, said,
that the Sheriff was presumed to know all those at least whom
he had in his custody ; and it was for the Jury to say whether
thee was not negligence in the return with regard to the sister
residing near Hereford.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiffs, damages ill., being the expences incurred by the
reversal of the outlawry, no other damage having been proved.
The action having been brought jointly by the sisters, the
Court would not stiffer them to offer evidence as damages indi-
vidually sustained by either of them.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—(Tats DAY.)
James Kay stood indicted for assaulting Mrs. E. Wilson,
on the 6th October, at the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea. The
short facts of the case were—the defendant, under the effects of
wine, hart mistaken the prosecutrix for another person, and
committed the assault complained of. The parties having ar.
ringed the matter out of Court, the case did not go to the Jrv,
and the necessary forms having been complied with they retired.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.