The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 20.
lITHER V. RICH.
This was an action on a bill of exchange. The de-
fendant pleaded several pleas, one of which was, that the
bill was not held by the plaintiff bona fide and for a valu-
able consideration. The bill was drawn by the defendant
upon, and accepted by, Lord Arthur Chichester, payable
three months after date, and was for the sum of 3001. The
bill was drawn on the 27th of September, 1834, and was
entrusted by the defendant and Lord Arthur Chichester,
together with several other bills drawn and accepted by one
or other of them, to a man named Levy. In the early part
of 1835 it was in the possession of Mr. Charles Hunter,
said to have been employed in discounting bills. From his
hands it passed into those of the plaintiff. In order to
support the pleas it was proved that Hunter went to the
plaintiff, who carried on business as a gun-smith, in
Leicester-street, Leicester-square, and requested him to
discount the bill. The plaintiff consented to do so,
and gave his own acceptance for a part of the value
and for the other he sold Hunter three single-barrel guns
at 301. each, and one brace of pistols at 601., making to-
gether 1501. in goods ; that Hunter took these guns and
pistols to a pawnbroker named Vaughan, and the guns were
sold to him for 11/. each, and the pistols for 171. Other
evidence was given for the purpose of impeaching the title
of Levy and of Hunter to the bill, and with respect to the
value of the goods sold, some proof nas adduced with a
leW to show that Vaughan had given the fair market price
fir the things purchased. This, however, was. denied on
the other side. The cause was tried before Lord Denman,
when a verdict was given for the plaintiff. A rule had
since been obtained to set aside this verdict and have a
new trial.

Mr. PLATT showed cause against the rule.
Sir W. FOLLETT supported the rule.
The COURT made the rule absolute on the question as
to the verdict being against evidence, but took time
to consider the other point.

BAIL COURT, Nor. 20.
Mr. WATSON applied to the Court to make a rule ab-
solute for a mandamus, commanding James Bradley and
Thomas Adams to admit and swear Mr. Samuel Vesey
•ns one of the Commissioners to be appointed under an Act
of Parliament for embanking, enclosing, and draining cer-
tain lands in the parish of Wainfleet, in the county of
Lincoln.

Mr. LAWRIE showed cause against the rule.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE would give his judgment on
a future day.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nor. 20,
CHANTER V. HOPKINS.

This was an action brought to recover the price of a
patent smoke-consuming furnace, invented by the plaintiff,
and supplied by him to the defendant for the use of his
brewery at St. Ives. At the trial, which took place in
London, before Mr. Baron Gurney, the Jury found for
the defendant, and also that the furnace was such as to
be perfectly useless to him. Mr. Erle obtained a rule nisi
last term for a new trial, against which Mr. Byles now
shOwed cause. The Court, without calling upon Mr. Erie
to support the rule, made it absolute.

20
ADMIRALTY lERA
RA L
BT
ITC
RO
TU
.11Tc
0,
LNL; 0
N.
This is a suit for compensation for the total loss of thl
schooner Adelaide, of sixty-four tons burthen, with a cargo
of fifty-nine tons of coal, which happened on the 14th of
February last, in Milford Haven, that vessel having been run
foul of by the Earl Bathurst. The Adelaide put into the
Haven
Newport inconsequence fad
badn twhenatEhaerr,i being on a voyage
from Bathurst,
of 237enrt tnCork, o
tons burthen, ran for the same harbour, and in endeavour-
ing to wear met with a strong sea, which pushed her back
stern foremost upon the Adelaide, striking her on the
larboard quarter. The crew were thrown into a state of
the greatest alarm, and got on board the Bathurst. The
storm continued, in some time it increased to a hurricane,
and after thiriy-six hours the Adelaide, with all her cargo,
went down, the crew never having returned to her. The
value of the ship and cargo lost is computed at about 4501.
or 5001. The Court was assisted by Captain Timbrell and
one of the other Elder Brethren of the Trinity House.
Her MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE for the owners of the Ade-
laide, contended that the collision was solely attributable
to the want of skill of the crew of the Earl Bathurst.
The Trinity Masters having consulted together, informed