The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-24 00:00:00

length into the case, ord-ud the bill to be dismissed
agsiiist all the d:!..-reknts, cr,sts, except
and as to hits, the biil must be eistuist.ed, bw. without

The Court then proceeded to hear petitions.

QUEEN'S BENCll.—crius DAY.)

WILMA MS V. THE C -‘EPORATION or EXETER.

In this cause a rule 11:d been uotained, calling upon
the corporation, who are c- nservat...irs of the Quay at
Exeter, to show cause why a mandamus should not is,ue
to try if applicant shou:d be reimbursed by 'an annuity
for being deprived of his office as wharfinger of Tops-
ham, near Exeter. It appeared that the duties of the
office had fallen off. and the Commissioners had thought
it proper to dispense with the services of the plaintiff.
The rule was argth.d at some length this morning.

Mr. ROGERS and Mr. CROWDER were heard at Consi.
derable length in opposition to the rule, on the ground
that the plaintiff was not a corporate officer, and that
when the dues fell off and wt re let by auction, the
corporation were fully and legally entitled to dismiss the
p'aintilif without curnpenslfion.
Mr. WATSON, on the other hand, contended that the
plaintiff, being appointed by the Corporation, with the
use%l formalities, that ho was appointed as coroner
and bailiff of the river, and authorised to wear a badge
of office; that he was a corporate officer, and entitled to
the usual compensation nutter the Act of Parliament.
At the conclusion of the argument the Cuurt granted
the rule for a mandamus.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
FISHWICK V. BILLINGS.

This case was tried in the Salford Hundred Court, on
the 29. h Oct. last, and a verdict given fur the plaintiff,
for 49/. odd.

Mr. MARTIN, Q C., now moved for a rule ealiing on
the plaintiff to show cause why there should not be a
new trial, on the ground of misdirection and the im-
proper rejection of evidence. The action was in trespass
for seizing, taking, and carrying away a quantity of corn,
hay, and manure, and converting and disposing of
them to the defendant's own use. The pleas were, first, not
guilty; and secondly, a traverse to the plaintiff's property in
the goods. The pleadings in the Salford Court are carried
on in precisely the same way as in any of the superior
courts at Westminster. The plaintiff had occupied a
farm called the Cross Hall Farm, under Lord Derby,
and in November, 1848, he was two years' rent in arrear.
In that month the bailiff of Lord Derby distrained all
the goods upon the farm for the rent in arrear; and
on the day on which the distress was made the plaintiff
entered into an agreement with his landlord, rtqaesting
the latter to forbear selling the goods until the follow-
ing February, to enable him to discharge the rent, and
the landlord agreeing at the same time to the goods
remaining in the plaintiff's possession at his own
proper costs until February, when he was to
abandon them, together with the premises, to
his landlord. In the January following the
plaintiff applied to Lord Derby's agent for permission to
sell the goods, and it would appear from the evidence
that the agent said he might sell all the stock upon the
farm, except the goods in question, which were some
hay, corn, and manure; and accordingly, in the month of
January, the plaintiff sold a portion of the goods, and
before February had arrived he had left the farm. It
"41 proposed, on the part of the defendant, at the trial
to put in evidence the agreement in question, but the
Judge rejected$e it on the ground of its being unsaanaped.
(Mr. Martin) moved also for the rule on the ground
that trespass was not maintainable, and that the remedy
should have been by trover.
The COURT granted the rule on both points.