The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC . 2

BREMRIDGE AND ROBERTS U. SIR COLIN
CAMPBELL, KNIGHT.
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE stated that this was an action of
money paid, laid out, and expended. The plaintiffs were in-
habitants of the borough of Barnstaple, for the representation
of which the defendant had become a candidate in 1830. He
had been an unsuccessful candidate, and that was no doubt the
reason why this cause had come here; for when a candidate did
not succeed, but found himself in the same situation as before
with regard to honours, and in a worse situation than before
with respect to money, he began to scrutinise the claims made
upon him with a most sceptical degree of severity.—(A
tion was made by the defendant's Counsel that the witnesses
on both sides should withdraw. They did so, and their num_
bens, as they went out, appeared rather considerable.)—The
Learned Serjeant continued, he feared that the Jury, in
looking at the numbers of the witnesses, must think they had
but a terrible prospect before them ; but he believed they would
find that the defendant, who was a gallant soldier, had prac-
tised the feint of other soldiers, who sometimes dressed up old
women in red e:Jats, in order to frighten the enemy : these nu-
merous witnesses would be found to be only old women.—(A
laugh.) The plaintiffs had made themselves responsible for
sum:, paid on account of the defendant's contest for the bo-
ough, to the amount of 1,7001., and that sum they now sought
to recover from him.
Mr. Jones—ln consequence of an application to him by the
defendant, he applied to the plaintiffs between the 10th and 31st
of July ; he was present at a meeting at the Golden Lion ;
Mr. Freestone was one of the persons present; he was the
person who had applied to me; there was a general con-
versation as to the expellee of the election, whether car-
ried or lost ; witness afterwards saw the defendant, and
accompanied him from Taunton to South Molton on the sth
of July ; witness made these memorandums in the carriage;
Mr. Pyne's name was mentioned several times ; witness told
Sir Cohn that the things had not been conducted by his agent
as an election required ; Mr. Pyne was mentioned as the
agent ; during the conversation an express arrived from Mr.
Fyne, and the defendant sent an answer, part of which he read
to me; the defendant said he had a letter from his professional
agent, and said he wished to write again to him ; witness did not
recollect that the defendant spoke of Mr. Pyne, except as his
" professional agent." Witness went with the defendant to
South Molton from 'Taunton ; there was a procession of Barn-
staple people; poll was opened on the Saturday, but no
u
place till Monday ; a very interesting canvass
took
plapollingce
o h t
tookhteeMonday,
Mr. Serjeant TADDY—Was it interesting or interested ?
Witness—Interesting.
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE—Oh, there was a sting in it.—(A
laugh.)
Witness was at Covering's lodgings ; those were the lodgings
that the defendant occupied ; Bremridge was there, Pyne was
there; witness told Bremridge that 500/. would be necessary to
secure the defendant's election ; Bremridge observed, that he
had drawn 1,700!., and would not draw more till he had got
a guarantee for the sums already drawn, and .or those
which would be required; Pyne at first would not au-
thorise the drawing of any money, but afterwards it was
agreed that 300/. more should be drawn ; Pyne left the
room, saying that he should communicate that to Sir Cohn
Campbell; he returned almost immediately, and sanctioned the
drawing of the cheque ; witness did not know that he said
anything; Bremridge said that the defendant ought to
give a guarantee, but Pyne said that he ought not to know
anything of the transaction ; witness was present on several
occasions when slims of money were paidby Lovering, and
Pyne was present at the same time; these payments were made
in the rooms occupied by the defendant; the defendant can.
.vassed the town himself; on Sunday the witness made up

the polling, and showed that there was not less than a Ina.
jority of 13 in his favour ; that was before the polling.
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE—The difference between before and
after is considerable.—(Laughter.)

Cross.examined—All boroughs of this kind were much on
the look out for a third man. At the meeting before the elec.
tion it was stated, that from 3,000/. to 3,5001. would be wanted
for the general purposes of the election ; Bremridge stated this
to Pyne, who said, he did not consider it too much money ;
5,0001. was stated as the sum that would be required if the de.
fendant was successful,
After hearing a great body of evidence, the Jury, at twelve
o'clock at night, returned a verdict for the defendant.

(THIS DAY.)
ILLIDGE v. GOODWIN'.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is the suc.
cessor to the late firm of Messrs, ',Teak and Bailey, the glass
and china warehouse in St. Paul's Church-yard, to recover the
amount of damage done to a part of his stock, through the ne-
gligence of the defendant's son.
Mr. Serjeant BUMPUS and Mr. RICHARDS conducted the
plaintiff's case, and Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE that of the de-
fendant.
It appeared that on the morning of the 27th Tune last the
defendant's son had left his horse and cart in St. Paul's Church.
yard, immediately opposite the plaintiff's house, without any per-
son to take care of it, and the consequence was that the animal,
being without any restraint, turned himself round, and backed
the cart against the shop window, which was entirely de-
molished, and the goods (consisting of glass and china articles)
in the window were broken to pieces. It was ',roved by the
witnesses of the plaintiff that repeated applications had been
made to the defendant, who is a cow-keeper in the City-road, for
a settlement of the amount of the damage done, namely,
18/. 145., but he had merely contented himself by paying the
repairs of the shop front, and offering 151. to put an end
to the action—this offer was rejected by the plaintiff, and the
action, therefore, went on in the usual course, although letters
had been sent to the defendant advising him to come to terms,
but no notice whatever was taken of them.

On the part of the defendant Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE called
two witnesses, named John Thrupp and John Nicholson, the
former stating himself to be a working jeweller, residing in
Merlin-street, Islington, and the latter a corn-dealer on
Saffron_hill, who swore that they saw a man strike the
horse on the head, which caused it to back, and that
a person ran out of the shop, and seizing the bridle
the animal continued to back, and that the accident was
through his interference produced. Both witnesses swore to
these facts; but in their cross-examination, by Mr. Serjcant
Bumpus, they admitted that they were well acquainted with
Serjeant's Inn, and knew something about justifying bail.—
Nicholson admitted, after a deal of pressing, that he had bailed
six or seven persons within the last twelve months ; and both
these witnesses giving their testimony with so much prevarica-
, tion, the Jury stopped the case, and told the Court that they
were quite satisfied that very little confidence could be placed
in their statement, and they should therefore find a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, IS!. 145., and costs.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY.

This being the Fourth Seal the Court took motions today.

WILLIAMS v. PARKINSON.

Mr. COOPER applied for a habeas corpus for the purpose
of bringing up the defendant. At the last Seal the Learned
Counsel had made a similar application, and his Honour imme-
diately ordered the habeas to issue, but the Warden of the
Fleet refused to obey the writ, unless the sum of 21. 12s. was im_
me.tiately paid for extra charges. This the Learned Counsel's
client, who possessed dear bought experience on these subjects,
refused to pay, and the Learned Counsel himself could not see
any ground for such extra charges being made. lf, however,
the Warden of the Fleet was entitled to make such a charge, it
would have to be paid him in the regular course; but it was no
I part of his duty to make the non-payment of it, at the time de-
manded, a ground for disobeying his Honour's order ; he there-
fore trusted the Court would grant his motion.
His HONOUR immediately ordered a new writ to issue for
the bringing up of the defendant, without the payment of the
extra charges.