The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-11 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY,-(THIS; DAY.)

The LORD CHAWCELLOR took motions to-day, with the
arguments in which his Lordship was occupied till twelve
o'clock, at which hour he rose, the absence of Sir E.
Sugden rendering it impossible fur any other gentleman of
the Bar to proceed with motions. His Lordship appre-
hending that the motions might not be sufficient to occupy
the Court the whole day, had yesterday ordered some
special case, which he had been informed would
occupy two hours in argument, to be in the paper
to-day, but owing to the neglect of some of his Lordship's
officers the ease had not been put in the paper, and, there-
fore, could not be proceeded with. His Lordship regretted
very much the necessity for the rising of the Court, parti-
cularly as to-morrow would be a broken day, his Lordship
having to attend the Court of Exchequer for the choice of
Sheriffs.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The arguments in demurrers and causes, of no public
importance, occupied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor the
whole morning.

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the MASTER of the RoLLs, after disposing
of between 20 and SO consent causes of no public im-
portance, proceeded with the arguments in the case of
" Lewis and Colmer," which has already occupied two days,
and appears very likely to take up as many more before it
is concluded.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

TAYLOR V. WILLIAMS.

This was a writ of error arising out of a verdict for
6001. found in favour of the present defendant, in an
action for false imprisonment, which took place in conse-
quence of Taylor preferring a bill of indictment against
Williams for perjury, but which indictment was not sus-
tained by evidence.
The exceptions taken to the verdict for the plaintiff
were, that evidence was admitted that ought to have been
rejected, and that the Judge who tried the question, left
the question of probable cause to the Jury, when in fact
and law be ought to have decided it himself.
Mr. WarrrE, at great length, supported the bill of ex-
ceptions.

•Mr. Serjeant Caoss was for the defendant, and con-
tended against the verdict being disturbed. He also
strongly contended that the Learned Judge had acted pro-
perly both in point of fact and law.
Lord TENTERDEN gave the judgment of the Court. It was
of opinion that the Judge had acted very properly, as the
question of probable cause was one peculiarly for the Jury,
and also that the evidence bad been properly admitted.--
The Court, therefore, rejected the bill of exceptions.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

Nothing of importance came before their Lordships this
morning. The bar being exhausted of motions, their Lord-
ships rose at twelve o'clock.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Baron VAUGHAN eat in this Court at Nisi Fritts.

LUMLEY V. GEDDES AND DE BACK.

This was an action brought for the sum of 1081. due
for meat supplied by the plaintiff, a butcher in Brooks's-
market, to the defendants, as proprietors of a school in
Tavistock-street, Tavistock-square.
Mr. WIGIITMAW and Mr. FOLLET appeared for the
plaintiff. In stating the case to the Jury, Mr. Wightman
said he was in a condition to prove the partnership be-
tween the defendants, which he said was all that would he
necessary for him to do. He admitted that Mr. Geddes
was only a sleeping partner, but being a partner at
ull would render him liable for the bill which was the
subject of the present action. He then called witnesses
who proved the delivery of the meat to the amount of 31.
a week for nine months; also a clerk in the banking-
house of Sir John Lubbock and Co., who deposed to the
two defendants opening a joint or partnership account
with that firm. They also proved the payment of 10/
by a cheque drawn in the name of the firm.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS, for the defendant Geddes, stated that
the present was an action brought entirely against his
client, for the other defendant was a bankrupt. He con-
tended that no case of partnership had been made out, the
only evidence was that his client and the other defendant
went into a banking-house and opened a joint ac-
count, but it was for the other side to prove that
that was for the purpose of this school, for in these dad s
of speculation, the object might be of a very different na-
ture. It was not proved that Mr. Geddes bad ever been
seen assisting in the school, in fact, the evidence was en-
tirely the other way, for even the servants in the school-
house had never seen hint there. He would confidently
leave the case in the hands of the Jury, for the Learned
Judge would tell them, that it was not for him to disprove,
but for the other side to prove the partnership, which he
contended they had failed to do.
The Learned JUDGE summed up at great length, and the
Jury retired to consider of their verdict. After being out
for half an hour they returned into Court and gave in a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 98/. ; having deducted
the 10/. cheque, which was paid.