The Sun.
London, England, 1822-10-18 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

CA3IBRIDGE, OCT: 17.—0 n Saturday last the following
Gentlemen were appointed the CAPUT'for the year ensuing :
The Vice-Chancellor.
Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. Trinity College. Divinity.
James Wm. Geldart, LL.D. Trinity Hall. Law.
John 'rhos. Woodhouse, BI.D. Caius College. Physic.
Thomas Dickcs, M.A. Jesus College. Sen. Non.-Regent.
Joshua King, M.A. Queen's College. Senior Regent.
Sir Thomas Mary-on Wilson, Bart. of St. John's College,
was on Wednesday admitted Honorary Master of Arts.—The
Rev. C. Benson, M.A. Fellow of Magdalene College, and
Hulsean Lecturer, has been instituted to the vicarage of Led-
sham, in Yorkshire, vacated by the death of the Rev. F. Tatter-
sall.—The Rcv. J. hi. Colson, 1.L.8. late of Jesus College,
has been presented to the rectory of St. Peter, Dorchester ;
patron, the King.
EXETER, OCT. 16,—Yesterday the Rev. Edmund South-
comb, M.A., was instituted by the Lord Bishop of this Diocese,
to the Rectory of Rose Ash, in the county of Devon, and
Diocese of Exeter, on his own Petition as true Patron, void by
the death of the Rev. John SoUthcomb.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT 17.

GORDON V. CAMPBELL.

This was an action by the plaintiff, Capt. Gordon, late of
the Portuguese service, against the defendant, as surviving
partner of the house of Campbell and Stewart, army agents, to
recover the sum of 150!., being the amount of a bill of ex-
change remitted by the plaintiff, to Mr. Stewart, in the year
1816, with orders to invest it in the funds, which it appeared
was not done, and Stewart since died in insolvent circum-
stances. The principal question in the case was, whether at
the time the bill was remitted it was sent to Stewart only, or to
the house of Campbell and Stewart, and on that point the evi-
dence was inconclusive. . _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up the:evidence,
observed, that if the bill was remitted after the partnership of
Campbell and Stewart had commenced, to the latter only, as
the personal friend of the plaintiff (which it appeared he was),
then their verdict must be for the defendant ; and he confessed
that seemed to him the correct view of the case, though of that
the Jury would form theieowu judgment.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

BRANDT v. PEACOCK.

This was an action for false imprisonment.
The plaintiff is mechanist to his Majesty,
! residing in Jrmyn-
street ; the defendant is an attordey, residing in Cambridge.
It appearid that the plaintiff, to accommodate a friend of his,
named Jones, accepted, in July 1820, a bill of exchange for
501., which dr. Jones afterwards paid, but the defendant did
not give him up the bill, as he said it was at his office at Berne-
wall, near Cambridge, but he gave Mr. Jones a memorandum,
acknowledging the receipt of the 501. for the bill. Mr. Jones
afterwards applied for the bill several times, but could not get
it from the defendant. In the year following the defendant,
without giving any notice to Mr. Brandt, made affidavit to the
debt, and arrested him.
These facts being proved in evidence—
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
contended, that as there was no evidence to shew that the ar-
rest was malicious, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that in any case the plaintiff'
was entitled to recover the expences back which he had incur-
red, and it was for the Jury to decide the amount of damages,
if they thought the arrest malicious.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 151.