The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-11 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Consent petitions and short causes occupied the Cour
the greater part of the morning.

EARLY RISING OF THE COURT,
Mr. PEDIBERTON, on rising to reply in the case of
Saward v. M'Dounell, expressed his great regret that his
absence should have been the cause of the Court rising at
so early an hour yesterday.
Lord LANGDALE—Yes, Mr. Pemberton, it was a great
loss of time. I regret very much that Junior Counsel do
❑ot attend on occasions when their leaders must he un-
avoidably absent.

Mr. PEMBERTON said it was impossible for business to go
on unless they did so. The Learned Gentleman then prc-
ceeded to address the Court in reply to the arguments or
Council on behalf of the defendants in the above case.

COMMON PLEAS-GUILDHALL.

(THIS DAY.)

BRAGG V. NICHOLSON.
ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—The plaintiff
in this case was a stone-merchant, of Wapping-, the defen-
dant was the owner of " Nicholson's Wharf;" near London
Bridge. In April last the plaintiff had delivered some stone
at the wharf, to the amount of 30/. ; and in May following
applied several times for the money. On the 3d of that
month he called at the wharf, and meeting defendant, pro-
ceeded to ask him for payment ; high words ensued, and
eventually plaintiff was given in charge to a policeman by
defendant, for obstructing him in his business. Plaintiff
was thereupon conveyed to the watch-house, and taken be-
fore Sir J. Key, at Guildhall, who discharged him, Nichol-
son not appearing.
Sergeant \\TILDE, for the plaintiff, submitted to the Jury
that he was entitled to compensation for so unwarrantable
a violation of his liberty.
Several witnesses having clearly proved the plaintiff's case,
The Counsel for defendant called his superintendent,
who stated that plaintiff had frequently called for the money,
and on the day in question had declared his intention of
following defendant about till he was forcibly removed from
the prennscs.
On cross-examination the witness said the account was
for cash, and that he had exatnined it when delivered, and
measured the stone.

Serjeant WILDE replied, and left it to the Jury to say,
whether a tradesman calling for a cash account several
weeks after the goods were delivered, was a justification for
sending him to prison.
The CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury that their verdict
must be for plaintiff, because the annoyance defendant might
have received from plaintiff's calling for his account, was
no justification for giving him in charge, and having him
sent to the watch-house. If defendant had anything to
complain of in the manner of plaintiff's demand, he should
have stated it at Guildhall. The Jury would assess such
damages, as were a fair and reasonable compensation to
plaintiff for the injury be had sustained.
The Jury found for plaintiff, damages 20/.

EQUITY EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY)

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
TONVNSEND V. CHAMPERNONVNE.

This case came before the Court on exception to the
Master's report. In 1811, a contract was entered into for
the sale of the manor and borough of Honiton, and Mr.
Scott, who agreed to become the purchaser for 75,0001.,
was to have the estate free of all incumbrances, except such
leases as were specified in the particulars, and there were
some other minor details. That contract was abandoned
by Mr. Scott, and Mr. Champernowne became the pur-
chaser in 1812, and entered into the contract which
was the subject of the present suit ; and he became
entitled to the property at the reduced price of seventy
thousand pounds on the terms stipulated in the original
agreement, and it was also agreed that Mr. Champernowne
should pay to the plaintiff the increased value of the bo-