The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-05 00:00:00

IVIONGAN V. ALLEN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who practised
as an apothecary in Staffordshire, to recover the amount of
a bill for attendance on a Mrs. Ironmonger, during her last
illness. The defendant was tlr. executor of Mrs. Aden. The
cause was tried at the Stafford Summer Assizes of 1836, be-
fore Mr. Joqice Littledale, when it appeared th,.t the "plain-
tiff had sent in a bill fur 104/., and then an item for extra-
ordinary attendances during four or live years, 110/." The
defendant paid into court 104/. as for the medicines, and 201
as for the attendances, but this was insisted to be a gratuity ;
and it was contended for the defendant that the plaintiff, as an
apothecary, bad no right to charge both for medicines and
attendances. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
the full amount. A rule had been obtained to set aside the
verdict, and enter a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground
of defence taken up et the trial.
Mr. Sergeant TALrovan showed cause, and contended that
the plaintiff was fully entitled to charge for his attendance;
and there was no law prohibiting him from doing so ; and
that in this case the attendance had been such as fully to
justify a demand of this sort.

Mr. CHArit.ns Primurs, in support of the rule, argued that
an apothecary had no right as that now contended for.
Lord DENMAN considered that this was a question entirely
of fact and not of law, and thtt. it depended upon two p ;iota
—first, whether there seas any contract that the pleintiffshould
not charge for attendarlce as well as medicines; and, secondly,
if there was no such contract, then whether the charges he had
made were reasonable. Suppo..ing that there was no contract
the jury must have answered the question in favour of the
plaintiff. There certainly was no law to prevent an apothe-
cary from eiarging for attendances, and he had a right to
charge for them if he did not obtain a compensAtiom for them
by putting a higher price rn his medicines.
The other Judges fully concurred.—Rule discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT, .lu.vs 4.
SPECIAL PAEER.-RHODES V. StiIETIIURST.

This was an action to recover 200/., due upon a promissory
note of one James Hobson, deceased, the deft ndant being his
administratrix. The plea to the count upon which the ar-
gument now arose was the statute of LimittaionF, and the re-
plication that James Hobson died in 1830, and in his will
natned the plaintiff as his executor; that in October, 1830,
the plaintiff took out letters of administration, but that afta-
wards a probate was granted to the defendant, li.ho became
administratrix, before which time there was no person whom
the plaintiff could sue ; and that immediately upon the probate
being granted to the defendant the plaintiff commenced the
action.

Sir. F. POLLOCK on a former day obtained a rule to ar-
rest the judgment.
Sir W. FoLnErr to day showed cause against the rule.—
Rule absolute.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

B 0 W- S TREE T.

Edmund Moulder, the conductor attic omnibus 2,350, was
yesterday placed at the bar, charged with assaulting Mr.
Chambers, the Magistrate of Marlborough-street. The p:i-
smer was fined 31. for the aeault, and is default of payment
to be committed to prison for two months.