The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-14 00:00:00

STCCKDALE V. CHAPMAN, ESQ.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS stated that this was an action
against the Marshal of the King's Bench Prison, for an
alleged fale(limprisonment of the plaintiff. The cause was
tried before Lord Denman, at the sittings after the last
Term, when it appeared that the plaintiff had been con-
fined in that prison on a judgment pronounced against him
this Court. His term of imprisonment was about to
expire, - when he applied to know the time at which he
should be eniitled to his discharge. He was informed of
the time ; but he-was told at the same time that before he
was discharged he must pay certain fees. He refused to
do so, and the Marshall then caused him to be informed
that if he was too poor to pay the fees, and would just
make that statement in writing, he should be set at liberty ;
but that it was necessary that he should do so, us the Mar-.
shall had no authority on his own responsibility to relieve
him from the payment of these fees. For the imprisonment
thus occasioned, the plaintiff brought this action. The
Jury had given 701. damages ; and the Learned Sergeant
now moved to set aside that verdict, and have a new trial
on the ground of excessive damages.

LorcIDENmAN said there must be a rule on the point of
excessive damages.

BAIL COURT.
LANGFORD V. BARRETT.
This case, which appeared to excite considerable inte-
rest, having been called on,

Mr. Justice PATTESON asked whether the Counsel en-
gaged in the case were ready to go on with it ?
Mr. PETERSDORF appeared for the defendant, and said
that he was quite prepared to have the case proceeded with.

. .
Mr. BALL rose, upon which
Mr. Justice PATTESON said—For whom do you appear,
Mr. Ball ?

Mr. BALL—I am instructed, my Lord, to watch the case
for Lady Langford.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Then "I can't hear you, for
Lady Langford is no party to the record.
Mr. BALL—The case is of a very peculiar nature, and
one in which Lady Langford is seriously interested, and I
have been engaged to watch the case for her.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Whatever the nature of the
case may be, whether it be peculiar or not, you cannot ap-
pear for Lady Langford, because on the face of the record
she is not a party interested in the case.

No Counsel having appeared for the plaintiff (Lord Lane.-
ford), his agent applied to the Court to postpone the trial
on the ground that there were some witnesses of importance
who had not yet arrived from Ireland. This was objected
to by the defendant's Counsel, and the record was accord-
rrly withdrawn.

ingly

COMMON PLEAS.-WEDNESDAY.

TARPLEY, CLERK, V. BLABEY.

This was an action to recover damages for a libel on the
plaintiff, published in the Northampton Free Press news-
paper. The plaintiff is a Clergyman, residing at Fiore, in
Northamptonshire, and the defendant a farmer, residing in
the same place. It was proved that the manuscript of the
libel in question was in the handwriting of the defendant,
and had been sent by him for publication to the Northamp-
ton Free Press. The cause was tried before the Lord
Chief Justice, at the Middlesex sittings after last Term,
when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
forty shillings.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS moved for a new trial.
Rule refused.

ADMIRALTY COURT-WEDNESDAY

THE KING V. FORTY-NI,NE CASKS OF BRANDY, FOUND

DERELICT.

In this case there were two claimants for several casks of
brandy which were found derelict near Poole, in the county
of Dorset, viz: the King, in his office of Admiralty, and
Mr. Wm. John Banks, as sole executor under the will of
his late father, Mr. Henry Banks, the Lord of the castle
and manor of Corfe. In support of the claim of Mr.
Banks were produced a commission issued by Richard
11., in the fourth year of his reign, to inquire what
possessions, rights, and privileges did belong to the