The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-15 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The continuation of the arguments in the case of Leni
o. Colorer occupied his Honour the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.--(THIS DAY )

No case worth reporting came before his Honour the
VICE-CHANCELLOR in the course of this morning.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

MURRELL O. BANNING.

Mr. Tommt;son stated that in this case an action was
brought against the Post-master of Liverpool, for the de-
tention of certain letters belonging to the plaintiff. The
cause was tried at the Lancaster summer Assizes in last
year, and a verdict f.und for the plaintiff, subject to an
opinion of the Court upon certain points. The circum-
stances of the case were these :—ln 1829 the plaintiff be-
c me a bankrupt, and a Mr. Harbottle, who was appointed
his assignee, wrote to the defendant, requesting that all
letters coming through the Post-office, directed to the
plaintiff, might he sent to him. Accordingly several
letters, which were directed to the plaintiff, were
sent to Mr. Ilarhottle, some of which were of a private
nature. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for tie penal-
ties which the Post-office Act imposed for such offences.
In that Act there was no exception even in favour of as-
signees of bankrupts, and the question was, whether the
as-ignee had the power of intercepting the bankrupt's let-
ters. The Learned Counsel contended that an assignee
had no such power under the Bankrupt Laws, and, there-
fore, the defendant, as Post- master, had incurred the pe-
indties imposed by the Act, fur having forwarded the plain-
tiff's letters to his assignee.
Mr. POLLOCK was about to reply, when

Lord TENTFItDEN said he would not trouble him.
The clause in the Post-office Act stated that to constitute
the offence it must be committed willingly and wilfully,
and, on reference to the Act, the preamble stated that it
was passed to prevent the wilful opening of letters, &c.
In cases of so highly a penal character the Court was
bound so to construe the Act as to meet the justice of the
An offence committed wilfully and willingly im-
plied that the party et the time was aware Ee was doing
an illegal act, but in this ease it was admitted the de-
fendant had acted bona fide, and that he thought he was
doing right. In his (Lord Tenterden's) opinion this cas,-
did not come within the meaning of that Act, and therefore
the judgment could not stand.
The other Judges concurring in that opinion the rule
was made absolute to enter a nonsuit.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. EDWIN TAYLOR.

Mr. TALBOT moved to make a rule absolute to allow
the defendant, now a prisoner in Shrewsbury gaol on a
charge of manslaughter, to be bailed before a Magistrat,
in the country until the Assizes. The circumstances of
the case, as detailed in the depositions before the Coroner,
were these :—The prisoner and the dece ised were in the
employ of a Mr. Brian, a farmer, of Little Hall. On the
Ist of August they were employed in taking hay into a
loft, the prisoner being in the cart, pitching the hay into
a pitching hole, where the deceased received it. Haviniz
filled that part of the loft, the prisoner requested the
deceased to come down the ladder to go to another
pitching place. Not coming down so quickly as the
prisoner wished, he was angry at the deceased, and
although no person saw any thing else pass be-
tween them, the deceased was in a minute or
two heard to exclaim, " Oh, Lord, I am killed !" and
he was seen to fall down with the prisoner's pitchfork
sticking in his side. The fork was pulled out, but the
deceased expired in a few minutes. The Coroner's Jury
had found a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner,
who was committed to Shreosbury gaol to await his trial.
The Learned Counsel stated that from affidavits which he
had, (and from which he referred to,) there could be no
doubt that the unfortunate occurrence was purely acci-
dental.

His Louustur directed that the prisoner be held to bail
before a County Magistrate, himself in SOL and tour
sureties in 201 each.

THE ICING V. SARAII CLEAVER.

ME. CLARKe moved for a certiorari to return the de-
positions into this case, and for a rule to show cause why
the defendant should not he discharged out of prison upon
giving sufficient bail to meet her trial at the asizes. She
had been committed to the gaol at Southampton, charged
with the manslaughter of Stephen Race. From the de-
positions it appeared, that for some improper cmiduct of
the deceased at the prisoner's house a scuffle ensued, and
he fell down. He afterwards left her house apparently in
good health, and walked about without complaining for a
week afterwards, when he died, and a Coroner's Jury
had found her guilty of the manslaughter. The deceased
war 90 years of age, and very infirm, and the prisoner
swore she had no intention of hurting him.

After reading the usual affidavits, his LoßnsittP granted
the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,-(THIS DAY

THOMAS V. FOULGER.

This was a cause tried at Croydon, before Lord Tenter-
den, at the last Assize•. Early in the term Mr. Gurney
applied for a rule to spew cause why the verdict, which
was for the plaintiff, should not be set aside, and a new
trial granted, which was obtained.

This morning Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE appeared to chew
cause against the rule. He stated that the question to be
tried in the cause was, whether Mr. Palmer, the late Mem-
ber of Parliament for Surrey, was a trader within the
meaning of the Bankrupt Laws. The proof adduced at
the trial was, that he was n ship-owner, and that on one
occasion a skip belonging to him went to St. Petersburgh on
a charter ; on her return without a full cargo, a quantity
of deals were brought over on his account, and which he
sold on their arrival in this country, for a profit. It fur-
ther appeared, that Mr. Palmer was a factor for some es-
tates in the West Indies, and his ships brought home the
produce, on occasions when they were not filled, other pro-
duce was bought him, but on the trial it was contended
that these purchases were merely for the purpose of pro-
perly filling the ships. The Learned Serjeant said, that
the only new fact relied upon by the other side, was that
Mr. Palmer, they had found out since the trial, had let out
hi. ships to Government, having contracted with the Navy
Board, but he contended, that such hiring would not carry
the case one bit further than at the former trial, when Lord
Tenterden expressed such a strong opinion upon the point,
as to say that the verdict was his own. But, even allow-
ing that that hiring would bring him under the Bankrupt
laws, the new Act only came into operation in 1525, and
the contract with the Navy Board took place in 1824, so
that they could not bring him under that Act, and under
the old Act it would not be taken cognizance of.
The Learned Serjeant was interrupted by

Mr. GURNEY, who stated that he learned from the affi-
davits furnished by the other side, that there was another
action g.,ing on in this same case in this Court, an action
against the Sheriff, which would bring the case to issue,
and therefore, he suggested, that this rule be enlarged till
next term. The action he ,poke of was down for the
sittings after the present term, and they would give an un-
dertaking to go to trial. This course would save expence
to the parties and the time of the Court.
Mr. Serjeant SPANK'S agreed to this suggestion, and
the Court enlarged the present rule till the first day of
next tern.