The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-12 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat in this Court and took
motions of no general interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

At ten o'clock Mr. Baron GARROW touk his seat on
the bench, and heard motions of course and justifications
of bail. Messrs. BOTELER and SI3IPKINSON, who were
appointed King's Counsel last term, took the oath of alle-
giance to his Majesty, King William the Fourth. Two
foreign gentlemen came. up to bail M. Laporte, of the
King's Theatre, when it appeared from the questions of
Mr. Chilton that they were already bail for Signor De
Begnis, Mademoiselle Sontag, Signor Spagnoletti, and
another Signor of the same establishment, whose name
we could not catch.
At eleven o'clock a full Court was made, when on the
application of Messrs. Boteler and Simpkinson, the LORD
CHIEF BARON appointed Thursday for general business on
the Equity side of the Court. He suggested to Mr. Jervis,
one of the counsel in " Small v. Attwood," that after
Monday it would be better to let that case stand over till
after term, when it could be taken on consecutive days,
which would be much snore convenient.

REID V. CREIG AND ANOTHER.

This was an action which was tried on Thursday last,
before Mr. Baron Vaughan, when a verdict was found for
the plaintiff, damages 711. The facts of the case were
these, the parties are nearly related, and in the year 1820,
or 1821, the father of the plaintiff lent a sum of 531. to
the defendants, who are father and son, for which he re-
ceived a bill. The defendants not being able to pay
it when it became due, it was renewed from time to time, up
to the year 1827, when a bill fur 61/. was given by the
defendants in the name of the present plaintiff, to whom
the father had transferred the bill, part of the original
money having been her's. Shortly after this transaction
Ithe father rendered to prison, and was liberated under the
Insolvent Act.

The defence to the action was that the money was not
due to the plaintiff but the assignees of the father.
This morning Mr. FOLLET applird for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, on the grounds of misdirection on the part of
the Learned Baron, and that the verdict was against the
evidence. The direction complained of was, that the
Learned Baron stated to the Jury his opinion, that if the
defendants were parties to the alleged fraud, in changing
the name on the bill, they could not set up that fraud as
a defence to the action ; and further, lie left to the
Jury to find what part of the money was the pro-
petty of the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel con-
tended, that the Learned Baron was wrong in both these
directions, and cited many cases in which parties had
pleaded not only their own fraud, but their immorality and
turpitude ; on the ground of the verdict being against the
learned gentleman took the same grounds as on the trial,
namely that the proof was not sufficient of the money
having been the property of the plaintiff, and that the de-
fendants were lialile to the assignees of the plaintiff's
father.—Ru!e granted.
Lumßy V. GEDDES AND DE BACH.

This case we reported yesterday ; it was an action for
the recovery of 98/. for meat supplied to the defendant,
De Bach, and it was alleged that Geddes was a partner.
Air. JOHN WILLIAMS this morning applied for a rule to
set aside the verdict, which was for the plaintiff, and to
have a new trial.

The Court overruled the objections of the learned gen•
leman, and refused the rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

THOMAS V. TILE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY.

Mr. Serjeant WILDE applied to the Court for a rule to
discharge a rule which bad been obtained for a special
Jury to try this case.
Mr. Serjeant JONES, on the part of the Marquis of
Londonderry, said that the action was brought for an
assault and false imprisonment against the Noble
Marquis by one of his domestics ; he believed it was
the nurse.—(A laugh.) Notice of trial was re-
gularly given, and the cause was entered in the list last
Trinity Term. It was, however, twice postponed, and
then made a remanet, on the ground that the time
of the Court would ba occupied too long, to the
great injury of other public business, and at length
it stood over altogether. Since that period the Noble
Marquis bad left London for Durham, and with him were
those of the servants, who were essential witnesses i❑ the
c lose ; others who could also speak to facts connected with
the alleged assault had been discharged. The ground
upon which application had been made for a spe-
cial Jury was that the recent circumstances, which
have occurred in the political affairs of the na-
tion would render a case of this sort unfit to be tried
by a common Jury, and in an affidavit made by Mr.
Howard, who has the conducting of the Noble Marquis's
case, that gentleman avows that a more impartial trial
would be had were a special Jury to try the cause,
than were it to be heard by a common Jury.
In the affidavit made by Mr. Goddard ofßlackfriars-road,
the plaintiff's attorney, allegations were made against the
Noble Marquis that he wished to delay the cause coming
to an issue, by keeping back his servants. With regard
to these allegations, he (Mr. Serjeant Jones) would say,
on the part of the noble defendant, that there is no day
that the Court would appoint for the hearing of the cause,
but on which the Noble Marquis would be most willing
to bring forward his servants to aid the plaintiff's case,
although they were at Durham ; therefore the allegations
of a wish to delay the ends of justice against his noble
client were untrue.

Mr. Serjeant WILDE said, with respect to the rule for a
special Jury, no special Jury could be had unless a motion
was made in Court two days before the adjournment day.
No such motion had been made. The Noble defendant says
he cannot have an impartial trial by a common Jury, owing
to recent circumstances that have occurred in which his
Lordship was concerned. He would ask if these were
not twelve impartial men to be found in Westminster,
fully capable of deciding between the Noble Marquis and
his dome stir, without resorting to a special Jury. The
Learned Counsel hoped, therefore, their Lordships would
order the cause to be tried by a common Jury the first day
in the sittings.

Chief Justice TINDAL—We do not wish to investigate
this cause ❑ow, and we do so for the good of both parties.
We think the rule should be discharged, and that the de-
fendant should pay all expences incurred in bringing his
servants to London, and that be should do all in his power
to produce them.
Mt. Serjeant JONES—WiII your Lordships fix any day
for the cause to be tried ?

CHIEF JUSTICE—Let it be placed the first on the Specia:
Jury Paper, and then it will come on early next month ?

Nothing of public importanre occurrel in any of the
Equity Courts previous to our Rrportrts lraving.

THE MARKETS -(THIS DAY.)

,EN MARKET.

ch•s morning's market, and the
dull, but with Fruit sAnewhat
on this day sc'nnight.

Ich
Spinageenc Beans(half-si ev o.d Bi
'it;
0 9 2 0
Young Apples 3 0 5 0
Pear 5 0 8 0
Sloes.
Bullace 2 0 3 0
Mushrooms 2 0 3 0
Onions (for pickling) 3 0 4 6
Span. Chesnitts (peck) 6 0 10 0
French ditto
Spanish tiazlenuts
French Walnuts 5 0 7 0
Brazilian Nuts 2 0 4 0
Eng. Grapes (per lb.) 3 0 5 0
I Foreign 0 8 1 0
Filberts 0 9 1 0
Endive (pummel) 0 6 oii