The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-11 00:00:00

LADBROOKE V. SMITH.-JUDGMENT.

NIKON W. THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY.-JUGDMENT.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco)

This was the first dai'of Hilary Term.
The Learned Judges took their seats on tho bench
shortly after ten o'clock.

DAWSON W. HAY.

1, This was an action tried at the last Guildhall sittings,
before Lord Denman, when a verdict was given for the
plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are the well-known advertising agents,
and they brought this action to recover the payment of
an amount incurred on account of the Shrewsbury- and
Leicester Direct Railway Company, of which the de-
fendant was a provisional committeeman.
:11r. TEMPLE moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted,
on the ground of misdirection, and of the verdict being
against evidence. He contended that no evidence had
been adduced to show that the defendant had taken any
part in the proceedings of the company of a kind which
could make him liable for its debts. lie also argued that
the Learned Judge, in leaving it to the jury to say bow
far the acts of the defendant were calculated to lead a
reasonable man to suppose that he had authorised the
persons giving, the orders to pledge his credit, was mis-
direction. His Lordship should have added, that to
make out liability, it was necessary that the plaintiffs
should have been aware of such acts.
Ruie granted, _ _

Lord -DENMAN remarking that it was desirable that
the question should be argued.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Justice ERLE, after hearing two unimportant
motions relating to points of practice, sat at nisi prius,
and disposed of several undefended causes which in.
volved no feature of public interest.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)
CASE OF WILLIAM COBBETT.

Mr. William Gibbetc, whose case has been so re
peatedly before the Court, appeared under a writ of
habeas corpus to complain of the manner of his treat-
ment in the Queen's Bench Prison.
Atter hearing him at some length,
The CHIEF BARON—Most of the arguments urged by
Mr. Cobbett have been repeatedly heard by the Court
and disposed of. The facts are these:—Mr. Cobbett is
detained under an attachment, and we have repeatedly
told him that it does not belong to us to deal with that
attachment, it having issued from the Court of Chan-
cery, which only has jurisdiction in the case, and is
clearly competent to deal with it, if there be any
grounds for setting it aside. With respect to the
other complaint, that he is detained in the
wrong prison, or in the wrong part of the prison, or
that the governor has placed him in class No. 1, the
question has been repeatedly settled and disposed of by
the Court. The true construction of the Act does give
the governor the right to place a prisoner in either class,
and if he keeps him in more strict custody than he is
warranted, the redress is not by a habeas corpus, but by
an action ; and the Court believes that Mr. Cobbett has
already brought an action upon the subject of
his complaint. Under these circumstances he
must return to the place where he has been detained
in custody, and I must say that I don't see what advan-
tage Mr. Cobbett has in coming regularly before one of
the Courts every term, applying for and getting a writ
in vacation, which he knew he would not obtain when
the Court was sitting in term. He has done this several
times, and possibly he may do it once too often. If a
prisoner make an affidavit, and swear that he is
detained unlawfully in custody, I do not see how a
Judge at Chambers can refuse to grant a habeas corpus.
Probably he is bound to grant one, but if Mr. Cobbett
chooses every term to persevere in making these appli-
cations, and thus waste the public time, he may find at
last that he does not do it without some peril. He has
heard stated repeatedly what the law is, and it may be
at last that the Attorney-General may be called upon
to save the public time, and support the dignity of the
Court, which I do not think has been treated with re-
spect by these repeated applications upon the same
grounds. _ .

- Mr. COBBETT—I wish to make one observation, my
Lord—

The CHIEF BARON—Not one word, Mr. Cobbett—
not one word—we have heard with patience what you
have had to say, and we cannot hear one word more.

Mr. Cobbett-again asked to be allowed to speak?
The CHIEF BARON (with some warmth)—Mr. Cobbett,
I desire you to be silent. The Court desires you to be
silent.

The applicant then left the Court in the company of
,he sheriff's officer.

VENTILATION OF THE COURT. The judges, bar-
risters, suitors, and others in the court were subject to
the greatest annoyance and inconvenience this morning
in consequence of some portion of the ventilating ma-
chinery getting out of order, by which repeated gusts of
cold air were thrown down from the upper part
of the court, making every one uneasy, and
threatening the most formidable colds. Sir Fre-
deriek Thesiger interrupted the business to apply
on behalf of the bar for a little hot air instead of the
cold air which had been blown upon them so liberally
during the morning. Their Lordships gave instructions
to that effect, and directed all the doors to be closed, but
the entrance of cold air still continued, and their Lord-
ships were obliged to remain satisfied with the protection
afforded by the curtains upon the bench, while many of
the bar sought refuge in the other courts.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The judges who sat in this Court were the Lord Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Justice Cresswell, and
Mr. Justice Williams,
Only one case, not of sufficient importance to justify
a report, came under hearing during the morning, and
there being no other business before their Lordships,
the Court rose at half-past eleven o'clock.
The CHIEF JUSTICE intimated that if the Court were
in the same predicament to-morrow the old new-trial
cases would be proceeded with.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCLIELL)
ATKINS V. MANTELL.
_. .

This was an action to recover the sum of 3141., the
balance of an account for goods sold. The plaintiff is
an upholsterer, and the defendant is the executor to
a person named Walker. The furniture was supplied
between the years 1832 and 1838, but the plaintiff and
Mr. Walker being on intimate terms, no settlement was
pressed.

Mr. Atkins, a son of the plaintiff, was called, and
prwred the delivery of the goods, and that the balance
claimed was now due.

On the part of the defendant a number of receipts
were put in.
The plaintiff's COUNSEL contended that as there was
no plea of payment, these receipts could not be received
in evidence.

The UNDER-SHERIFF Said that:strictly speaking, they
could not, but he should think that it would be better
to admit them if they were found to be correct.
The Learned COUNSEL said there was a difficulty in
such a case, as it was impossible to say at once to which
account the receipts applied, as there had been previous
dealings between the parties to the amount of 1,000/.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that he would reject the
evidence, and take a note of the objection, if required to
do so.

The Learned COUNSEL questioned the witness, and he
said that the receipts applied to a former account due to
" Atkins and Giblet," although the receipts were given
by plaintiff, as he was to receive the partnership debts.
The defendant's SOLICITOR then addressed the jury,
and said that the defendant had been driven to rejecting
the claim by the other creditors of the estate, which
would only pay a dividend of 6s. Bd. in the pound on
their debts, and they were quite taken by surprise at a
demand being made. Ile also said that the whole of
the estate had been administered.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said, in the absence of a plea,
the jury had nothing to do with the matter, and if they
thought the receipts had been satisfactorily explained,
they would give a verdict for the full amount.
Verdict for plaintiff.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE STOREY.
This bankrupt had carried on business as a banker at
St. Albans, and to-day was appointed for the choice of
assignees. The business of the day was confined to
taking proofs, no account having yet been filed.

CITY IMPROVEMENTS.—Yesterday the Commis-.
sioners for the City of London Improvements obtained
possession of the whole of the houses in Castle-court,
Cloak-lane, north side of Dowgate hill, Budge-row,
Tower Royal, St. Thomas Apostle, and the numerous
courts and alleys intersecting, consisting of nearly 200
dwellings, for the formation of the new street from the
end of albrook to the Middlesex side of Southwark-
bridge. They are all now vacated and will be pulled
down forthwith. The commissioners have already com-
menced the widening of Cannon-street, the east side of
which, extending trom Turnwheel-lane to Dowgate-hill,
being already removed.
TAKING THE VEIL.—The solemn and interesting
ceremony of the reception of a young lady into the Ro-
man Catholic order of the Sisters of Mercy took place
yesterday in the chapel of the Most Holy Trinity, Par-
ker's-row, Bermondsey. The postulant, a Miss Watkins,
the daughter of wealthy parents, went through
the usual forms of admission in the presence of many of
the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and a very
crowded assemblage of spectators. The solemnity of
the
drviee and the
~interest attached to the occasion
breasts to create feelings of the deepest sympathy in the
of all present.

His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, dismis-
sing the bill with costs.
he Court then proceed( d to hear motions, but nothing
of any interest came before his Honour during the
morning.

(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour heard motions and petitions to-day, it
being the first day of Hilary Term.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
ZONES V. HOW,—JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR stated that in this case, which stood in
the paper to-day for judgment, he remained of the some
opinion he had expressed at the hearing.

This case stood on the paper for judgment to-day, but
at the suggestion of his HONOUR, who stated his
opinion to be, that the question must be dccided at law,
the matter was ordered to stand over to Wednesday next
in order that the parties might consider of the issue to
be tried.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions.