The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-25 00:00:00

. _
ROBINSON V. NICHOL.
Mr. OGLE moved for a ru'e to show cause why a writ
.of prohibition should not issue directed to the Judge of
The County Court of Hertford, to restrain him from
-taking any further proceedings in this case on the ground
.hat he had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff was a cattle
•lealer, and the defendant a farmer, in Hertfordshire.
b'otne time ago the plaintiff Lad a quantity of sheep
'grazing on the land of a person named Lipscombe, whose
grounds adjoined those of the defendant, and the fences
flparatiug the two properties which ought to have been
kept in order by Lipscombe being in a very deice ive
state the sheep strayed on to the defendants land where
they were distrained and driven to the pound. The sheep
remained in the pound for several days, and the de.
fondant neglected to supply the sheep with food as pro-
vided by the sth and 6th of William the Fourth, cap. 59.
e/hereby he bad rendered himself liable to a penalty of
53. a day, recoverable by summons before a
magistrate. Eventually the sheep were reless :d
Upon the plaintiff plying the defendant ii. for
the damage they had done to his land, and then the
Plaintiff commenced the present action in the County
Court, to recover the penalty, 'together with damages,
from the defendant, for his reithal to deliver up the
sheep when the If. was first tendered. At the trial of
the cause it was contended that the penalties were not
recoverable in a County Cum% but only before a ma-
gistrate, while the defendant lost all control over the
sheep when they were impounded, and the only party
'who could legally authorise their delivery was the lord
of the manor. Nevertheless, the Court found for the
plaintiff, notwithstanding the matter was not within the
Ittriediction of a County Court.
Mr. Justice ERLE said it appeared to him that the
Court had jurisdiction, but the judgment ought to have
passed for the defendant. Before, however, he granted
the rule, he would take time to look into the authori-
ties bearing on the case.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(TIIIS DAY.,
(Before Mr. Undersheriff &MICHELL.)
WAVELL V. ROWBOTTADI.
The olaintiff in this action sought to recover the sum
(42701. 14s. 3d., for money paid on account of the de-
isarlant.
There was no defence to the action—evidence was
adduced to show that the money had been advanced by
Payments of debt and costs in different actions brought
against defendant.
A verdict was given for the amount.
ATTWOOD AND OTHERS V. WINNE.
The plaintiffs are bankers in the City, and the action
Vas brought to recover the sum of 2764 10s. 4d.
An admission cf the debt was put in, and a verdicf
Was given for the amount.
PARKER V. CLARK AND BADRIN.
The plaintiff is an attorney, and the
to recover 31. 10s. V. for work and labour done.
The defendant Clarke suffered judgment to go by de•
fault, but Badkin pleaded that he was nut indebted.
Mr. CROUCH called the plaintiff's clerk who proved
that he had seen both defendants at the piaintiff's office
,together and had directed a litter to him, "C. Badkin,
31-'''qe 9, Foster-lane, City." It was the envoin fir him to
COPY the letters in the book and to pot &l the letters so
entered, but made no entry, but made one when he de-
livered them—he Ead no d,uht of Laving rested it, but
could not swear. The L.Airrlcd tutu tendered a
e3PY o: the letter written to Mr. Badkin.
Mr. PRENTIS objected that it w,i.e not shown that
defendant lived at the above address, or that he had
called in consequence of any letter.
The UNDER-SHERIFF thought the letter admissable,
tut would take a note of the ohjt-etion. The witness,
however not being able to prove any conversation with
i
Aiadkio, the Learned Under-Sheriff said there was no
evidence to go to the jury as to Badkin.
Mr. Crtoucil said he would be noneuitcd.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it must be a verdict for the
second defendant, or the writ must be withdrawn without
any damages.
Mr. CRoucH then toek a verdict against Clarke only.

tion was brough

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE.-
13HtMINGHAM, WEDNESDAY.—No candidate has yet been
Innouneed in opposition to the return of Lord Lewis-
ham._ It. is said'that his Lordship delayed off. ring him-
fell' as a candidate until he was assurcd that gentlemen
who it was presumed had prior claims upon the confi-
dence of the manufacturing interests of the division de-
clined coming forward.
COST OF TUE PASSAGE TO CALIFORNIA.—The cost
er getting to San Francisco by the Chagres route, using
the mailsteatrers, is about 375 -dolls.; say, 150 dolls. to
• Chagres, 20 dolls. across the Isthmus, and 200 from Pa-
llama to San Francisco. By taking scat:lid-cabin pas-
,-82(ges, however, the cost will be reduced about 80 dolls;
ciLd by taking sailing vessels itistcrul of str amer to
'`Alegres, the passage may be made for 250 dolls. The
VOYage ria Vera CluZ and Acapulco may probably be
blade in rather less time, but not cheaper. 'file pasi-age
1-;.ja Panama will probably average 35 days from. New
,',.)tk• The distance from Panama to San Francisco is
about 3,500 miles. The prices of passtge in the United
states ships from Panama to the ports respectively
ri
• "aed on the Pacific coast are as follow:—
T...

Miles.