The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-11 00:00:00

DAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1536.

fined each of the defendants 5/., which their Lordships were
aware was the highest penalty the law empowered the
magistrates to inflict. In the course of pronouncing
his judinaent, Mr. Dyer observed that he thought
it better to punish summarily, as the females would not
like to appear in a Court of Justice as prosecutrixes, to be
subjected to the annoyance and exposure attending a cross-
examination. On the Sunday following there appeared in
the paper in question a report of the case, and an allusion
to it by the editor, in which reference was made
to the gross and indecent assault committed upon
two respectable females ; and it was stated that the
scoundrels who had perpetrated it had escaped un-
punished, because the mere fine of 5/. could not give
persons of their appearance a moment's pain or uneasiness,
and would only encourage them to repeat their " brutal
lark." It further went on to say, that two respectable
females, one of them married, and the mother of four
children, had been most indecently and filthily treated by
persons whose address, &c., indicated them to belong to
the higher classes, and for that Mr. Dyer had mulcted
them in the paltry sum of Si. each, which was most pro-
bably less than they had spent on their night's debauch—
that he had suffered them to conceal their names, and thereby
escape exposure, the effect of which would be to induce others
in the same district in which Mr. Dyer resided to repeat
the offence—that Mr. Dyer had affected to be influenced
by a wish to spare the feelings of the females, but the con-
sequence would really be to give their brutal assailants an
opportunity of assaulting them again. Nothing was more
strongly impressed by Mr. Dyer, than that females should
be protected ; but it resembled the man preaching tem-
perance while in a beastly state of intoxication. Had the
scoundrels been in a lower rank of life, how extensive
would have been the punishment inflicted by Mr. Dyer—
how stern his denunciation—how awful his indignation.
In such a case the offenders would not have been suffered

to conceal their names—money was the grand mover, and
great was its effect ; and Mr. Dyer appeared to be
sensible of its influence. That article had appeared
on the 30th of October and on the 6th November, the
next day of publication another article appeared, in which
reference was again made to what was called " the escape of
two gentlemen-blackguards, the assaulters of two respect-
able females in St. James's-square." It added that the li-
beral press, with one solitary exception, had spoken with
great indignation of Mr. Dyer's scandalous conduct. The
Courier alone had attempted to defend the Magistrate ; but
the proper punishment for those who had money at com-
mand and character at stake, would be the exposure of
their names, which might have been done by their being
held to bail ; and that the conduct of the Magistrate in

the present case was merely offering an inducement to fellows
to insult respectable females. That was the way in which
Mr. Dyer had been attacked for his adjudication in that
case, although there was no reason in the world for be-
lieving that the parties had any other names than those
given by them. Mr. Dyer had inflicted the highest penalty
the magistrates were empowered to impose for an assault,
and Mr. Conant fully concurred with Mr. Dyer in his de-
cision. The affidavit further stated that Mr. Dyer had
referred to the females who had been insulted, and they
both thanked him, and expressed themselves perfectly
satisfied with what had been done. It was very painful
to a gentleman moving in the sphere of life of Mr. Dyer,
to make such statements, but be felt it due to himself
to state that he knew nothing of the parties, and had not been
actuated in it, or in any other case, by private or interested
motives, but had always discharged his duty without fear or

reward.
Lord DENMAN—Does Mr. Dyer swear that he believes
the names given to be those of the parties ?
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Yes, my Lord ; one of them gave his
name to the constable, and the other came forward as a
witness. Mr. Conant also makes an affidavit to a similar
effect, and there is one from Mr. Fitzpatrick, the clerk. A
police officer also makes an affidavit, that the ladies lin-
gered in the office after the case had been disposed of ;
and on being told that they were not further required, they
stated that they had only remained to express their thanks
to the Magistrate again for what had been done.
COURT—You may take a rule.

BAIL COURT.
MERCERON V. MERCERON.

Mr. Paten applied for a rule to show cause why the de-
fondant should not be discharged out of custody on filing
common bail. The defendant was arrested in January last
for 130!., alleged to be due to the plaintiff, and had re-
mained in custody ever since. The defendant had pleaded
the Statute of Limitation, and the plaintiff replied that the
case did not conic within the statute, although the bill of
particulars delivered by him clearly showed that it did. He
had not yet proceeded to trial, and he (Mr. Price) trusted
that the Court would, as in other cases where there was
reasonable ground for supposing that the defendant would
ultimately have a verdict in his favour, discharge him from
custody on putting in common bail.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.—Can you mention a case in
which the Court have made such an order, merely on the
ground that the verdict might ultimately be for the
defendant ?
Mr. PRICE—In the case of " Sutton v. Green," the
Court, on affidavits showing that there was a probability of
a ‘erdict being in his favour, ordered the defendant to be
discharged, on putting in a common appearance.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—I think you had better make
your application to the full Court.

WILLIAMS V. DAWSON.

Mr. WILLIAMS appeared to show cause against a rule
obtained on a former day, by Mr. Watson, calling upon the
plaintiff (an attorney) to answer the matters contained in
certain affidavits. The only point on which the Court
could interfere was that the plaintiff was an attorney in
that Court, and he (Mr. W.) apprehended that as he was
not an attorney of the Court at the time of the alleged
transaction, that the rule must be discharged. The affida-
vit as to his being an attorney of the Court merely stated
that John Williams was on the Roll. Now the Court
knew that Williams was a very common name among
Welch attornies—besides the plaintiff was an attorney at
the great Sessions only up to the passing of the Welsh
Judicature Act, by which the proceedings in that Court
were transferred to this. _

Mr. WATsoN—And the Attornies with all their obli-
gations and liabilities transferred with them.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE-But not with all their trans-
gressions.—(A laugh.) As the plaintiff was not an At-
torney of this Court at the time of the alleged transac-
tions, I cannot interfere, and the rule must be discharged
with costs.

Mr. WATsoN hoped the Court would not allow costs.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—YOU should have aseertaineC
whether the plaintiff was an Attorney of this Court be.
fore you made your application. The costs are allowed
The Court then rose.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

STEVENS V. WINNINGALE.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said that this case had been
tried the day before yesterday before Mr. Justice Parke,
and a verdict found for the plaintiff for 501., and he now
moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, with the leave of the
Learned Judge. It was an action for debt, for money lent
to the defendant upon an account, stating the particulars
of demand. The plea was, " Never indebted ;" and the
particulars of demand were, " April, 1834. Cash lent,
501." The plaintiff rested his case upon the testimony of
a witness of the name of Walsh, who was called, and
stated that he was present at a public-house in Aldgate,
some two years back, when a conversation took place be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff asked
the defendant when he meant to pay him the 501. he had lent
him, to which the defendant said he would give him an order
for 501. upon a person of the name of Fisher, who was in-
debted to him, the defendant, and the defendant went for
paper, brought some paper back, and wrote an order re-
questing Fisher to pay 50/. Walsh turned out to be a
person of extremely suspicious character ; and a good deal
of suspicion was thrown upon the case in the course of his
testimony. The defence was—and in point of proof, not-
withstanding the evidence of the witness for the plaintiff—
it was made out, beyond question, so as to be admitted by
his Learned Friend Mr. Thessiger, who appeared for the
plaintiff, that in truth, though there was a transaction
about 501., and though there were promises to pay, yet in
truth no money had ever been lent, and the debt of 501.
arose out of some bet upon horses. The question was then
reduced to this, whether, supposing it to be made out that
this was not money, but under the first count, but arose
from some gambling transaction, whether the plaintiff was
not entitled to recover on the first count stated, there being
nothing but the plea of the general issue—the terms of the
particulars distinctly and particularly putting the demand
upon cash lent.
The LORD CHIEF JuirrlcE—Your objection is, that the
evidence showed a false particular ?
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—Just so. _ _

Mr. Justice GAZELEE—Under the plea of " Never in-
debted," could you give evidence that the debt arose from
a gambling transaction ?
Mr. Sergeant TALFounn---Certainly not.

LOAD CHM' JUSTICE—The plaintiff has given a false
character to the foundation of the action, you may therefore
take a rule to show caus..—Rule granted.

CORNISH V. KEENE.

This case was again proceeded with, but was not con.
eluded when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER COURT .-(THIS DAY

At the sitting of the Court this morning, the LORD
CHIEF BARON, addressing Mr. Whateley, said—Mr.
Whateley, you having been appointed to fill the situation

which Sir 'William Owen has resigned, you will be pleased
to take your scat accordingly.
The situation is that of Postman of the Exchequer. We
understand there is no salary attached to it. The advan-
tage it gives him is, being called upon to move in Term time
before even the Attorney-General.

CARRINGTON V. ROOTS.
Mr. GREENWOOD moved to set aside a verdict for the
sum of 2s. 6d. in this case, which was one of trespass,
tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, at the sittings after
last Term. The defendant had bought more growing
grass, in the neighbourhood of Primrose Hill, than he
had use for, and applied to a hay-salesman named Lucy to
procure him a purchaser for a part of it. He introduced
the plaintiff to the defendant, and a bargain was struck for
four acres. Lucy was the principal witness at the trial,
and he said when the bargain was concluded he made a
memorandum of it, which he had at home, but he consi-
dered it a private one, and merely for his own use. The
plaintiff was to cut his grass, and have the liberty of taking
it away in his cart. Lucy said he was first to pay a moiety of
the price agreed upon. The defendant, on going to the
fields one day, saw some part of the grass cut, and a horse
and cart standing there. He complained to Lucy three
or four times that the plaintiff had not paid him
anything, and at last seeing more grass going away, he
seized the horse and cart for the rent due. The plaintiff
Lucy and the defendant then met at a public-house, where
they rescinded the former contract, and the plaintiff then
bought two acres of the grass at 51. an acre. He
(Mr. G.) contended that the memorandum alluded to was
an agreement made at the time of the contract, and ought
to have been produced, or no evidence of its contents
given ; and his Lordship had given him leave to move for
a nonsuit upon that point.
The COURT said it seemed to be a mere private memo-
randum, and that neither plaintiff or defendant were parties
to it.
Mr. GREENWOOD would then go to another point. It
had been often held that a sale of growing grass was a
parting with, or a sale of an interest in land—there were
many cases in the book to that effect. If this were so,
then the case came under the 4th or the 17th section of
the Statute of Frauds. If the paper spoken of was put
out of the question, then there was no agreement in writing
as that statute required.

Rule granted on the latter point.
SMITH V. SMITH.

This was an action upon a bond executed between the
plaintiff and the defendant, as trustee for the plaintiff's
wife. The plaintiff parted with his wife, and they mutually
executed the bond in question, he covenanting to pay a
certain annual sum for her maintenance, and the defendant
covenanting that the wife would not molest the plaintiff, or
run him into debt. When the case was brought before the
Judge at Nisi Frills, the case, by the consent of all parties,
was referred to the clergyman of the parish where they re-
sided ; all parties agreeing that no advantage should be
taken on any technical ground. The arbitrator
heard evidence in the cause, and made his award in favour

of the defendant, finding that all the breaches assigned oc-
curred after the husband and wife had cohabited again,
which he considered cancelled the bond.
Mr. BUTT now moved to set aside the award, on the
grounds, first, that it was bad on the face of it, because
not only the cause, but all matters in dispute between the
parties were referred to the arbitrator ; the award did not
contain a single word as to any other matters of difference
between them, which he contended was a fatal objection.
The second ground was that the arbitrator heard a most
material witness, viz. the wife of the plaintiff, in his ab-
sence, and while no one was present on his behalf. It was
agreed that such evidence should be struck out of the ar-
bitrator's notes ; but from a subsequent conversation held
by him, it clearly appeared that his award was founded
upon it.
The COURT having been informed that no point had
been reserved for settlement by the Court, the parties were
bound by the award in terms of the submission. No party
was to take any technical objection. According to the
cases the Court had no power to grant the motion. They
wished to hear what was stated as to the conversation held
by the arbitrator, after the evidence of the wife had been
agreed to be withdrawn.
Mr. BUTT said it was that Peter Smith could just as
soon set aside the award as the horse he (the arbitrator)
rode, for the evidence of Mrs. Smith showed clearly that
it all took place after the bond was set aside by their living
together.
The COURT did not think that was sufficient.—Rule
refused.