The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-01 00:00:00

KING'S BENCILL-(THIS DA.Y.)

oattngs at Nisi Fritts, bctOre Mr. iusai.: I'2'o'l'o2(j:4 it`l'd
a Common Jury.)
PIGNVM.
Mr. 11ILLY stated the Paso. ‘v,s ar a;,tiv to recover
a sum of tW.4. 354 ttie =mini Of a bill Cit c..enzitigt! &c.;•;.ri I
and eikAni.sed by.Mdtitaatto Newland; it solieitor; and ac-
cepted by the dtffedant; Oitib*a th 6 proprieibr of the Stag
Tavern; Fulham--road: The bill was dated 7th jannary,
18360 payable font- Months after date, and was passed by
Newland hi the plaintiff, a tailor; bf Cecil-street; Strand, in
payment of an actount for clothes. The dtifendant dis-
puted his liability, first; because the bill was not presented
until after it had bcnorne chic but that he (Mr. Kelly)
contended i.VaS qttite An6lluir eiblediciti was,
that the bill was not endorsed at the time 4 *fts paSA to
the plaintiff, but it would rest With the other side to prove
that. A third defence was; that the defendant bad never
receiVed any dMi.tniciratidli for tltt± billl and Also that the
plaintiff never gave any consideration trsr it. Mr. :tidily
would not enter into transactions that had taken place be-
tween the defendant mid Newland, htit as the plaintiff had
received it in the regular course of his trade, he submitted

that he was entitled to a verdict for the amount.
George Duckett, clerk to Mr. Newland.—The bill now
handed him is drawn and endorsed by Mr. Newland. 'Wit-
nen corrected himself, and then said the words '° Montane
Newland" odly were in Mr. Newland's handwriting. 1. he
bill was then put in and read.
Mr, CitEsesWr.LL addressed the jury for the derniklatlti
One of the defences which he would rely upon was, that it it
was proved that the bill had not been endorsed when it was
passed to the plaintiff, the endorsee had no better title to
sue upon it than the endorser. His learned friend had re-
lied solely upon the testimony of Newland's clerk, and had
withheld Newland himself, although it was evident that he
was one of the parties to the bill, and could state
under what circumstances and for what cemsideration

he had received the bill from the defendant. He
would prove to their satisfaction that the bill had

been obtained froin the defendant in the most frau-
dulent manner, and it would be necessary for this pur-
pose to enter into some little detail. The Learned Gentle-
man here proceeded to narrate a variety of transactions be-
tween Newland and the defendant, the substance of which
was, that Parsons, having built a new public-house, was na-
turally desirous of obtaining a license, and Mr. Newland re-
presented to him that he was well acquainted with many of
the Magistrates of the district, and would interest himself in
procuring the license, in consideration of receiving a sum of
501., when it was obtained. Parsons assented to that ar-
rangement, and it would be proved to them by one of
the Magistrates that Newland did interest himself—that
the Magistrates were indignant at Newland's interference;
and granted the license solely on account of their know•
ledge of Parsons' character. Newland obtained the bil
for 50/., but passed it into other hands, and he had a
letter of Newland's in his possession, in which be urged
the holder to proceed against Parsons, who suffered judg-
ment to go by default, and a writ of fieri facias was sued
out. An arrangement was subsequently made, by which
Newland was to advance 301., and to raise 401. or 501.
more upon a warrant of attorney, to be given by Parsons
to a person named Kent. Parsons was afterwards induced
to advance Newland two bills for 26/. ss. each, to satisfy
the warrant of attorney, and upon one of these bills the
present action was brought. The Learned Counsel con-
tended, that under all the circumstances of the case the
defendant could not be held liable for this bill, he never
having received any valid consideration for it.
Charles Williams, attorney for the:defendant.—On the
25 th of June last I saw the plaintiff relative to the bill in
question, and asked him if it had been endorsed. Plaintiff
said Newland had refused to endorse it, as the bill would
probably not be paid. Witness recommended plaintiff to
return the bill, as the defendant had a good defence against
Mr. Newland, and if he got it endorsed after that notice he
could not recover—that the bill had been obtained from the
defendant without consideration, and under very improper
circumstances.

Cross-examined--Witness had previously known the
plaintiff. He made no objection to give every information.
Gave the plaintiff no notice that what he stated would be
used in evidence. Plaintiff told him that Mr. Newland
said if the bill was paid he might carry it to the credit of
his (Newland's) account. •
Mr. Justice PATTESON observed, that unless the plaintiff
could contradict the evidence just given, be must stand in
the shoes of Mr. Newland, and he put it to the Learned
Counsel (Mr. Kelly), whether, in such ,circumstances, it
would be worth while continuing the case.
Mr. KELLY submitted that the defendant's special plea
was not proved, inasmuch as it was pleaded that the bill
was given for the benefit of Newland, whereas it was given
to take up a warrant of attorney.
After a lengthened discussion the examination proceeded.
Joseph Kent—Witness had been requested by plaintiff
to call upon Newland, and beg further time when the first
bill became due. I learned from Newland that the consi-
deration for the first bill was drawing a petition to the Ma-
gistrates, writing numerous letters, and using his best exer-
tions to procure a license for defendant. I afterwards
learned that the bill was renewed, and that was subsequently
renewed by two bills for 261. each.
After several other witnesses were examined relative to
the transactions between Newland and the defendant,
Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury in reply for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice PATTLsoN summed up at considerable length,
observing that the main question for the consideration of the
Jury was, whether the bill had been accepted for the ac-
commodation of Newland, and whether the defendant had
or had not received consideration for it.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury).

LAMBALL V. MACARTHY.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DAY.,

The Court was occupied the whole morning in the trial
of an action for the recovery of an attorney's bill, in which
there was no point of the slightest public interest.

INSOLVENT COURT.--(THIS DAY.

SHERIFFS' COURT--(THIS

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up this case to
the Jury, said it was an action to recover damages for a
trespass. The plaintiff was a baker, who rented certain
houses in Drury-lane, as a weekly tenant, and the defen-
dant was the landlord. The landlord being desirous to
obtain possession of the premises served the tenant with a
notice to quit, or to pay a double rent after the expiration
of the month's notice. The plaintiff refused to quit or to pay
the double rent, and what the landlord should then have
done was to bring his action of ejectment, and the law would
in that case have put him in quiet possession of the tenement.
Instead of taking this course, lie did what was commonly
called taking the law into his own hands7--he entered the
premises, took down and carried away sonic of the fixtures,
which were insured. He (defendant) had no right
to do this, and, therefore they must find the verdict
or the plaintiff, and all they had to du was to judge
what compensation the plaintiff was entitled to for the tres-
pass in question. The plaintiff being a weekly tenant, and
paying a weekly rent (155.), did not possess a long interest
in the tenement ; and they must therefore consider how
much he had been injured by being suddenly put out of
possession, or at least within a shorter period than the law
would have sanctioned, if the defendant had availed himself
of the legal remedy of the action of ejectment. It was for
the Jury to say what was a proper and reasonable compen-
sation, looking at all the circumstances of the case.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 151.

(Before Mr. Commissioner LAw.)
Henry Honore Loisel, a native of France, applied on his
petition to he discharged. It appeared that the insolvent
had been settled for some years in this country, where he
had acted as agent-to a French house of the name of Edere,
who dealt in fancy goods. In the insolvent's schedule
several French creditors were included.
Mr. Commissioner Lew told the insolvent that his dis-
charge in this country would not have any effect upon his
French debts, as in that country the creditors* had no notice.
The insolvent was then discharged.
John Shepherd, a furniture broker, was opposed on the
part of ti builder named Smith. The insolvent had been
employed by his opposing creditor to levy a distress on a
tenant named Jones ; he obtained 61 which he kept under
the pretence that he was threatened with an action ; this
was not the case, and Smith brought an action against him,
which, with the costs. amounted to no less than 161. The
insolvent sent a person of the name of Lawson for the
purpose of seeing whether matters could not be arranged.
Lawson failed in his negociations. For the trouble he had
taken io the affair, Lawson, who carried on the trade of
a dealer in apples, had sued the Insolvent, and thrown him
into prison, for the purpose of getting out of which he had
applied to the Court. It was contended, on behalf of the
opposing creditor, that the debt was collusive, and could
not be sustained.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said Lawson must attend to
prove his debt, as it was a suspicious case.
The insolvent was remanded for the production of the
alleged detaining creditor.

ILLNESS OF THE JUDGE.- day was set apart to try
the issue, Armstrong v. Cromwell, in which the question
of the chastity of a married lady is deeply u,volved. At
eleven o'clock Mr. Sergeant ARABIN entered the Court in a
state of great exhaustion, and said that he had been visited
this morning with a renewed attack of bilious fever, and it