The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-19 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 13.

LA MANtac.—While the Judges were engaged in hearing
arguments of cases in the special paper, a man, dressed like a
sailor, rose in the Court, and burst out into exclamations, evi-
dently in a state of madness. He stretched out his hands, and
cried out " Where is the King's throne? What is it he wants
with me? Here I have the money to pay, and I will pay it."
After which he threw some halfpence and a letter-case on the
ground. Mr. Justice BAY LEY begged that he might be taken
care of, and that his property might be given him, but he cried
out that he would take none of it, and left the Court. The
argument was then resumed.l

THE KING V. BRYANT AND ANOTHER.

Mr. ADOLPHUS moved, at the instance of Mr. Alfred
Bunn, the husband of Mrs. Bunn, of Drury lane Theatre, for
a rule calling on the proprietor and publisher of the newspaper
called " Common Sense, or the Weekly Globe," to show cause
why a criminal information should not be exhibited against
them. The libel complained of was of a most atrocious na-
ture, inasmuch as it conveyed an imputation of a crime, the
least suspicion of which was sufficient to drive a man from so-
ciety for life. It was contained in a " Notice to Correspon-
dents," and, without mentioning the name of the applicant,
referred to the place of his residence. It described him as the
associate of persons who had been notoriously guilty of that
offence, and recommended him to go to Paris, and indulge his
wishes there, instead of remaining in England.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if there was a denial of
the imputations.
Mr. ADOLPHUS replied that there was a most distinct and
positive denial. Mr. Bunn had no knowledge whatever of the
parties named, except one, and him he had only very slightly
knowu in former times.
The UouitT granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.

ACCOMMODATION FOR LAW STUDENTS.

At the sitting of the Court Lord Chicf Justice BEST stated,
that a letter had been sent to one of his Learned Brothers by an
individual signing himself " A Student at Law," and com.
plaining that no accommodation was afforded to law students
m the Court. His Lordship regretted that the fact was so,
but he hoped that the defect would not remain long without
a remedy. In the mean time the Court would do what it
could to remove the cause of complaint; and for this purpose
he now stated, that any gentleman producing a certificate of
admission to any of the Inns of Court should (during the Sit-
tings in Banco) be accommodated in the jury-box, and ((lur-
ing the sittings at Nisi Prins) when the jury-box would be
otherwise engaged, room would be made for students in the
gallery, and that orders to this effect had been given to the
officers of the Court.

ANDERSON V. SHAW.

In this case a rule had been moved for to shew cause why a
verdict for the defendant should not be set aside, and a nonsuit
entered against the plaintiff:
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in pronouncing judgment, observed,
that he should have directed the Jury at Nisi Prins to find a
nonsuit, if he had not been misled by the Counsel's partial
quotation of local authority. He regretted that occurrence ex-
tremely, and hoped that he should never again witness a repe-
tition of such conduct. He concluded his observations by or-
dering the verdict to be set aside, and a nonsuit to be entered
against the plaintiff:
After a few other uninteresting motions, their Lordships ad-
journed the Court.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 18.
BRAMAN v. BURCHELL.

This was an extra day appointed for hearing an objection
taken on the part of the executor of a will of the late Signora
Storace, who died in August 1817, to an act on petition, where.
in Mr. William Spencer Harris Braham, a natural son of the
deceased, had entered with some detail into the circumstances
upon which he founded his prayer that the Court would be
pleased to revolve the probate of the said will, granted so long
ago as 1818, and permit him to propound his interest as the
residuary legatee named in the will of Mrs. Elizabeth Storace,
the mother of the deceased Signora Storace ; anti whilst living
the only _person entitled to distribution to the estate and effects
of her daughter. The grounds of the executor's objections
were, Ist, the irrelevancy of much of the matter set forth in
such act on petition, which would require that proofs should
be brought from Vienna, at an enormous expence, in order to
substantiate it; and 2dly, the incapacity of Mr. Spencer Braham,
as representative of his grandmother, Mrs. Elizabeth Storace,
to make this demand, she having not only repeatedly ac-
quiesced in the disposition of the will, whereof probate had
been taken, but having also received monies under it.
Sir JOHN Nictiou, would not permit the Learned Counsel,
at this stage of the cause, to open the case on either side, as to
the facts ; and declined giving any opinion on the admissibility
and relevancy of the matter sought to be impeached, until the
act on petition shall be closed and issue regularly joined. The
hearing of this cause, it is expected, will speedily come on.

PALACE COURT.

THE ALDERNEY DAIRY COMPANY v DOWSETT.

This was an action brought by two of the Acting Managers of
the above named Company, carried on in Percival-street,
Clerkenwell, against the Defendant, a poor man formerly in
their employ as a milk carrier, to recover the penalty of l Os.
per day, liquidated damages, for a breach of an agreement
entered into by him with the Company.
It appeared on the trial, that the defendant entered into the
service of the Company in July, 1823, at a certain rate of wages;
that he continued with them until the Christmas following,
when they requested him to sign an agreement, by which
it was agreed that a week's notice should be given previous
to the defendant being dismissed, or his leaving the Com-
pany 's service; that he should not, during such service, nor
within twelve months after being discharged, commence,
carry on, or be concerned in any way whatsoever in the trade
or business of a cowkeeper or milkman, or as a milk seller
or carrier, either in his own name, or for his own benefit,
or as the servant of any other person under the above-named
penalty, within the distance of five miles from Northampton-
square. No wages were stipulated to be paid by this agree-
ment.

The defendant entered into the service of the Company under
the above agreement in January, 18'25, and he was then told
that he should have an halfpenny for every quart of milk he
sold above a certain quantity. So diligent and attentive was the
defendant to the interests of his employers, that he had a weekly
demand of 10s. upon the Company over and above his wages,
for the increased quantity of milk sold by him, and they were
compelled to put two additional men upon his walk to assist
him. He continued in their service until Ist Oct. last, when
they desired him to take another walk,whieh he declined,knowing
that he would in that case lose all the benefit of the increased
sale his own diligence had obtained for the Company, and he
was therefore discharged. Immediately afterwards he carried
on the business on his own account. For a breach of his agree-
ment in this respect the action was brought.
After hearing the evidence, and the summing up of the
.Judge, the Jury consulted together. and after the lapse of some
time, gave a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 30s.