The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-17 00:00:00

HAY mannwrs.

SMITHFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21 8s to 31 10s; Clover
litto, 31 Os to 41 103; and Straw, 11 33 to 11 103 per
Load. A moderate supply, and a sluggish trade.
CITMEERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 2110 s to 31 12s; Clever
ditto, 31 Os to 41 los ; and Straw, 11 4s to 11 lOs per
oad. Supply tolerably good, and trade dull.
WurrEcnepEL. Meadow Hay, 21 65 to 3l 10s;
Clover, ditto, 310 s to 4/ 12s; and Straw, 114 s to 1/ 105. per
load. Trade dull, at late rates.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH:-(THIS DAY•)

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning
in hearing appeals from quarter sessions with respect
to the removal of: paupers, but they were not of suffi-
cient public interest t o deserve a report.

(COMMON PLEAS —(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
Mr. Justice MAULED Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, and
Mr. Justice TALIOURD •)
TOGAN V. HARRISON.

This action was brought to recover a sum of money
which the defendant had agreed to pay, under con-
tract, for the purchase of a ship, and it now came
before the court in the shape of a special case, the
point to be decided having reference to the validity
of an award which settled the amount to be paid by
the defendant.

The Court delivered judgment this morning,
stating they were of opinion that the verdict should
be entered for the defendant on the several issues
which were joined on the record.

Verdict entered for the defendant accordingly.
DRAPER V. DE TORRI.

This was an action instituted before Mr. Justice
Cresswell, at the first sittings in Middlesex during
the present term, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff—damages 201.
Mr. Sergeant BYLEB now applied to their Lord-
ships for a rule to show cause why there should not
be a new trial, and he did so partly on the ground
of surprise, and partly on the ground of the amount
of damages. A rule had been taken out by the
defendant for a special jury, and when the
case appeared in the trial list an application was
made to one of their Lordships, Mr. Justice Talfourd,
who was then sitting at Nisi Prins, that such a jury'
should be granted, but he said he could not inter-
pose in that stage, as the case had not then been
reached. Mr. Justice Cresswell sat next day, and
when the case was called on he (Mr. Sergeant
Bytes) protested against its being tried by a common
jury, but his Lordship—and he was not prepared to
say he vas wrong—decided against him, and the
case was accordingly tried by a common jury. The
defendant was absent in Germany at the time of the
trial; they made the best defence they could for him
under the circumstances ; and if the Court thought
fit to give any relief in the present instance,
he was quite aware it would be on the understanding
that the costs of the application were to be paid by
the defendant. This was an action for trespass,
assault, and imprisonment, and the defendant pleaded
the general issue. The circumstances of the case
were of a very peculiar nature. It appeared that the
defendant, Count de Torri, was a foreign nobleman
—he believed a native of Constantinople—who was
possessed of a considerable fortune, -and he came to
this country and took a house at No.
1 A, Gordon-square. No doubt existed either
as to who the landlord, or who the tenant
of the house was, for the landlord was
culled and the lease was produced. It appeared that
the lease was made to the nephew of the Count, and
that the Count was the tenant and had to pay the
rent. In the course of the trial it turned out that
there was a person of the name of Myers, who
formerly kept a curiosity shop, and was called Doctor
Myers, and he managed to insinuate himself into the
confidence of the Count, whose secretary be proposed
he should be, at a salary of 1,0001. a year. It
appeared further that he made a claim upon
the Count for salary at the above rate, but
did not succeed in getting any money from
him on that ground. However, a very extraordinary
occurrence took place on the 18th of May in the pre-
sent year, and it eventually resulted in the bringing
of the present action. About two o'clock on that day
as the Count, after the custom and manner of his
country, he supposed, was sitting smoking in his
dining-room, some people came to the front of the
house and got down the area ; they consisted of three
or four men, and they opened one of the
area windows and went into the kitchen.
They then proceeded up stairs into the
dining-room, and told the Count that they had come
to distrain for rent to the amount of 141., which was,
due to this man, Myers. The gentleman became.
alarmed ; he entreated them to go out; they declined,
and he at last said, " Now, tell me what you demand,
and I will pay it." The Count, however, had some
English servants in the house, and they advised him
not to pay the money, and he did not pay it, and the
consequence was that the men continued in
possession. In the course of a very short time,
half an hour or so, another body of men
made their appearance at the street door; they
entered the house, he would not say improperly,
because the door was opened and they might have got
in without any difficulty. The plaintiff Draper was
one of them, and they said they had come to seize the
furniture under a bill of sale, and they insisted upon
removing it. The Count protested against
such a course, saying that he never executed
a bill of sale, and knew no more about them
than he did of their execution. The men were, how-
ever, inexorable, and hd sent to Mr. Baltazey, who
was banker to his Imperial Majesty the Sultan, and
requested his advice and interference. Mr. Baltazey
dispatched a messenger to Mr. Aldibert, a coachmaker
in Lung-acre, whom he had employed, and that person
went to the house and saw the parties, but could not
induce them to quit possession. They then proceeded
with the distress, some taking up the carpets, and
others pulling down the curtains and removing the beds.
Mr. Aldibert advised the Count to send for an attorney.
A messenger was accordingly started off to Messrs.
Wire arid Child, the defendant's attorneys, who sent
back their managing clerk, who inquired of the par-
ties what authority they had to proceed in the manner
they did. The bill of sale was produced, and it did
not purport on the face of it to be a bill of e
made by Count de Torn at all, but it