The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-12 00:00:00

YEATES V. WHITTLE AND OTHERS.

This was an action for false imprisonment.
A solicitor named Blake had issued a writ against John
Yeates, and the warrant on that writ was placed in the
hands of the defendant Whittle, a sheriff's officer, for exe-
cution.. 'Whittle went on the 12th of July to the plain-
tiff's residence, in Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn, and arrested
him under the writ, although the plaintiff showed him by
the law list that his Christian name was " Thomas," and
not " John," and stated that the writ was not against him,
but against his brother, who was also an attorney. Mr.
Blake, who was sent for to speak to the question of idea-
dity, insisted, however, that the plaintiff wasthe right party,
and on this the defendant Whittle detained the plaintiff in
custody in his own office for three hours.

--,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 20/.

EXCHEQUER COURT. DEC. 10.

(Sittings in London after Michaelmas Term before Lord
ABINGER. and Special Juries.)
CROSSLEY V. HULLETT AND OTHERS.

This was was an action to recover compensation for
work and labour done and performed. The plaintiff, in
the autumn of 1830, waited upon the defendants, who
are the owners of a sugar refinery, and informed them
that he made a valuable discovery as connected with
the branch of the sugar business, and asked them to allow
him to erect machinery upon his plan. After several in-
terviews, the defendants consented, upon the following con-
ditions : that they would pay the cost of the erection, that
the plaintiff was to be at liberty to exhibit the plan when
at work, and that if the experiment fully answered the end,
he promised the defendants were to make him such re-
muneration as they should think fair and reasonable. An
estimate of something under 5001. was accordingly furnished
by the plaintiff ; but it was found by the time the works
were completed that the outlay had been somewhere
about 1,1001. The plaintiff then made a demand for com-
pensation which the defendants refused to comply with.
On the part of the defendants it was contended that
the only, remuneration the plaintiff was to receive was such
as the exhibition of his plan when at work on their premises
might lead to ; that the costs of the erection had been
more than double the amount set forth ; and that the ex-
periment had not realised the benefits he had held out.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited. The case lasted all day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, DRc. 10.
THOS. HARVEY FORRESTER'S BANKRUPTCY.

A meeting of the creditoss under the fiat issued against
this bankrupt, who left the country some time since, taking
with him considerable sums of money, the property of his
creditors, was held to-day for the proof of debts, and the
declaration of a dividend. Forrester was pursued to Bou-
logne, where a considerable sum was obtained from him,
and he was imprisoned by order of the French authorities,
and still remains incarcerated at Brest. In order to obtain
accurate information from the bankrupt himself relative to
his various transactions, Mr. John Fleet, one of the messen-
gers of the Court, was despatched to Brest ; and in reply
to various interrogatories put to him made some extra-
ordinary disclosures relative to his transactions, and which
it is fully expected will tend to the recovery of property,
and the disallowing certain claims upon the estate. The
debts proved to-day amounted to about 2,0001., and claims
were offered to the extent of 12,0001. or 14,0001., in which
several of the relatives of the bankrupt were included.
The declaration of the dividend was postponed, in order to
allow time to pursue the inquiries necessary in consequence
of the disclosures made by the bankrupt in the prison at
Brest.