The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-31 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DA. Y.)

JONES V. PRITCHARD.
This was a case of libel arrising out of a dispute which
had taken place between Mr. George Jones, the trage-
dian, and Mr. Pritchard, the manager of the York eir-
"it, relative to a contribution to the fund for preserving
bbakspere's house at Stratford. The defendant had
Published the libel in the Yorkshire newspapers, and
issued it to the theatrieal world as a circular, and for
v ery instance where the circular had reached the hands
4,1 the party to whom it was addressed, the plaintiff had
!'oninaenced a separate action, making in all seven dif-
7erent snits to recover- compensation in the shape of
!!ixtages for the same libel. A few days ago, however a
,
Alr• Cockburn, on behalf of the defendant, obtained i,1113 rthi• calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why
I: proceedings should not be stayed in all the actions
t One, until that one had been tried, and that rule was
argued yesterday.
Mr. Justice E E now gave judgment, making the rule
for
the Stay of proceedings absolute.
Mr
IN RE MR. SAUNDERS.
:n -
• INPPB applied on behalf of this gentleman, who is
at attorney of the court, for leave to renew his certifi •
me,rhe
Thaving for some years discontinued his practice.
min
• • 'althea ERLE upon looking over the affidavit,
d it appeared that Mr. Saunder's had been out of
practice for the last eighteen years, doling which time
directed his attention to a study entirely unconnected
7TI the jaw. Under these circumstances, he was
!:2hged to order by a recently established rule, that
e•arz • Saunder's should go through the ordeal of a second
eatuination before the examiners of parties applying to
13 admitted attorneys.
FIPPS said it was true Mr. Saunders had been
Kluying theology during the last eighteen years, in the
F,.aPactty of a missionary at New South Wales, but if his
14:_ordship would look at the certificates, he would see
.fit Mr. Saunders had been in the habit of associating
"1141 the judges and magistrates of that colony.
r. Justice ERLE said that might be so, but it would
departing from the established practice
11iIctsti,fteilhtlim°raitateerhsi.8
terniu.° application was accorlingly postponed till next

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
MILLER AND OTHERS V. SMITH.
ere en
A FOREIGN CONTRACT.—The plaintiffs in this action
in gineers at Brighton, and defendant is also a work-
atun g engineer, The
of 40Z,
' use. hadandreceived to and for the
Y
for
money
ction was brought to recover the
Plaintiffs
. Mr. CORRIE stated the case.—That plaintiffs had en-
rt_ered into a contract with the Austrian Government to
Is up a steam-vessel, and it became necessary that Eng-
h.artizens should proceed to Venice to perform the
"rk- Defendant was one of those, engaged at 365. a
week, and all travelling and extra expenses to be paid;
4ncl 40/, was advanced to the detandant, and he was di-
ected to proceed to Venice. This, however, he did not;
dam,
W, consequently, an inconvenience arose; but no
tile as sought by the present action, but merely
r
fereciec°Tery of the amount e
l As the defendant had s-
-Jn the ea seudgment to go by default, there could be no doubt
aefevnilence was adduced to prove the contract, and that
Th"e"t did not perform his part.
~__ jury gave a verdict for the amount.
Tw.ntmeat AND IMPORTANT CASE.—KINGDON V. FORD.
Inn'4.l2e Plaintiff in this action is an attorney in Clifford's
_ and defendant a baker in the Old Bailey. The
realloh was brought to recover the sum of 191. 25,, the
balance of a joint and several bills of exchange, of
-which the defendant was alleged to be one of the
acceptors.
_The defendant pleaded that
f he did not accept the bill.
M . Kingdon
ing the cas callede ipla
appeared, and after stat•
Mr. Cubley, who stated that be was the trustee of a
loan seciety. Re saw defendant sign the bill, and knew
loin by having had two previous transactions with him.
Witness indorsed the bill in the
Roland" (Mr. Roland being at the treesa
c"oliC.
rt
rue
aub
sioetie:e:bnuicint
---is
bwitl:olu; n
bas since retired) to Mr. Ringdon.
Cross-examined by Mr. Tnostss
the society. Indorsed the bill to plaintaiffs
Pasideration, and employed Mr. Shepherd (Mr, iiie de: ,8
to bring the action. g 'a Mr. THOMAS here submitted that there was no ease—.
it was clear the plaintiff had no right of action; the fact
was one of the parties had been sued in the County
Court, but as nothing had been recovered, the Bill had
been
.put into the hands' of an attorney, to sue in the
Superior court, which the Courts had held ho had a
right to do.
The SECONDARY said they must keep to the pleadings
villieh were no acceptance.
Mr. THOMAS' said it was impossible to plead or to
know the facts in all cases—as in this a conclusive fact