The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-23 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAtts.)
After taking somemotions of course, his Lordship proceeded
to take trials before a common Jury.

GIBBON v. RANDAL.
This action wan brought to recover damages for a breach of
the articles of a covenant of apprenticeship on the part of the
defendant, to whom the plaintiff had been bound, but a corn•
promise was effected between the parties.
This was an action of asault.

CHESTER V. LAMB.

Mr. ALEXANDER in stating the case for the plaintiff, said
Mr. Chester was an attorney at Great Nlissenden, Bucks, and
in the month of January last had arranged to go by coach to
some place and had taken the seat on the box. The defend-
ant, who also wished to go by the same coach, desired him to
got down and let him hare that seat, and on plaintiff's declining
the defendant proceeded roughly and with abusive language
to pull him off, and failing in that, he pushed him upon the
roof of the coach.

Witnesses were called who deposed to these facts, and they
were subjected to a very amusing cross-examination by Mr.
Thesiger, counsel for the defendant, but their evidence in the
main was not shaken.

Mr. Tl►Es►uEk then addressed the jury in a most humourous
speech for the defence, throwing ridicule on the whole pro-
ceeding, urging that such a frivolous case ought never to oc-
cupy the attention of a jury, and trusting that though the
plaintiff, being himself in the profession of the law, was here
" killing his own mutton," he should not be allowed to kill
this Lamb.—( Laughter.)
The Jury found—Damages One Farthing.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-.(THIS DAY

PREECE V. VIALTZRS.

Mr. EVANS moved to set aside the verdict for the defend-
ant which had been returned in this case. It was an action
for trespass, and was tried at the late Carmarthen Assizes,
before Mr. Justice Coltman. It appeared that the plaintiff
had been in possession of a close upwards of thirty years,
and that he had built a house upon it. In 1836 he
had three cows in the field, which the defendant caused
to be taken out and driven to the parish pound. The defence
set up was, that the close in question formed part of a larger
farm, which was held upon a lease of lives ; that the last life
in the lease fell in in 1836, and that the then tenant of the
farm, who bore the same name as the defendant, renewed the
lease and underlet the close to the defendant, and for the pur
pose of proving that statement they called Mr. Walters, the
tenant of the farm. Upon the part of the plaintiff, he (Mr.
E.) objected to the competency of the witness, inasmuch as he
came there to prove his own tenantcy and that by his evidence
he might obtain his rent.

The COURT over-ruled the objection, on the ground that
the vei diet in this case could not be used by the witness in an
action of ejectment, and that the only question in the case was
the amount of damages in which he was not interested.
Mr. EVANS had another objection. He objected that the
lease at the trial did not come out of the proper custody. Tke
evidence was given by Mr. Walters, and he said when the
lease expired in May, 1826, he went to the office of Messrs.
Williams and Jones, where he surrendered it, and got a re-
newal from Mr. Williams, but there was no evidence to con-
nect him with the original lessor, Jennings.
The COURT inquired whether it was not shown that \IV il-
hams received rent during the subsistence of the lease.
Mr. EVANS said such evidence had certainly been given.
The COURT held that to be enough, and refused the rule.

DEAIPSTER V. RODNIAN.

This action was tried before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE at the
late Liverpool Assizes, when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff. The plaintiffs bought a certain quantity of teak timber,
to be delivered in the river at Sierra Leone. In the agree-
ment there was a clause directing that all defective
timber should be valued by two surveyors, one to be appointed
by each party, and that the defendant might take the timber,
if not pleased with the valuation. Upon the landing of the
timber complaints were made of a part of it, and valuers ap-
pointed ; but in the meantime 1,000/. of the purchase money
was paid. The valuers appointed an umpire, and made their
award for 144/. less than the 1,000/, ; and for that
sum the action was brought. He contended that the award
was bad, as they had not the power of appointing an umpire,
and that they had gone on wrong principles by valuing the
timber as it lay in Liverpool in place of as it was at Sierra
Leone. Besides it appeared from the letters put in evidence
by themselves, that they had refused to give the timber to the
defendant, and therefore were not in a position to maintain an
action for money had and received.—Rule granted.