The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-26 00:00:00

IN THE HATTER or SARAH GREENE.

Mr. LORAINE moved his Honour to order the discharge of a
woman named Sarah Greene, whom he described as a person
who had been long in very indigent circumstances, and who,
having been made a defendant in a suit in this Court, in which
she had no interest whatever, had had an attachment proved
against her in consequence of her not having put in an answer,
she being too poor to employ Counsel. Under that attachment
she had been incarcerated in Stafford Gaol for six months, and
afterwards for an equal term in the Fleet Prison. Notice of
this motion had been given to the attorney, by whom the cruel
treatment had been ocr2sioned, And he had not thought proper
ito appear to oppose t. .
The VrcEXHaNcy.t.r.oll--Mr. Loraine, this is a horrid
case. I could hardly have conceived that an instance of such
oppression could have occurred in this country.
Mr. Loaamt stated that he had affidavits of all the facts.

His HONOUR directed the discharge of the poor woman,
and added, he hoped that she would be advised to seek other
redress against the attorney, which he was sure no Jury would
refuse.

Mr. LORAINE requested that, as the poor woman was anxi-
ous to return to her friends immediately, the order might be
at once made out.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed that the order should be
immediately made out.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 2.5.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY sat at Nisi Prius for the Lord Chief
Justice at half-past nine o'clock, and disposed of a number of
undefended causes. The Lord Chief Justice, however, en-
tered the Court with the other Judges about 11 o'clock.

NE LUSH V. RICHARDSON.

This, it will be recollected, is a writ of error from the Corn.
mon Pleas. The defendant in error, Mr. Richardson, was the
commander of an East Indiaman, and resigned this command
under a contract with Mr. Mellish, by which, in a certain con-
tingency; he was to have the command of the Minerva East
Indiaman for four voyages. The contingency happened, and
Mr. Richardson called on Mr. Mellish to complete his contrad,
by appointing him (Mr. Richardson) to the command agreed
on. This Mr. Mellish refused to do. Mr. Richardson brought
an action in the Common Pleas, to recover damages for the
breach of contract, and obtained a verdict with 7,500/. da-
mages. Mr. Mellish then obtained a rule Nisi, to set aside
the verdict and have a new trial, which rule was afterwards
discharged. lie then brought alvrit in the King's Bench, and
on a former day this term it was argued. For the plaintiff in
error it was contended, that there was no consideration given
by Mr. Richardson; but if there was any consideration given,
then the contract came within the statute against the sale of
public offices, and in either case it was void.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, as soon as he had taken his
seat this morning, was proceeding to give judgment, when
Mr. CAMPBELL rose to beg the Court to defer its judgment.
He said he should have made a motion to this effect some days
ago, but that ,he was waiting the result of a rule Nl:i in the
Common Pleag, which had been obtained for amending the
postea ; this rule had been made absolute, and the postea
am ended accordingly.
The LORD CHIEF JUST/GE, in reply to Mr. Campbell,
who had pressed his application very urgently,_ said, that this
was no reason for suspending the judgment of this Court upon
the writ of error. His Lordship stated very briefly the grounds
of their decision, reversed the judgment below, and ordered a
new venire to issue.

At a subsequent part of the day, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
said to Mr. Campbell, that to prevent any misapprehension as
to what had fallen from the Court in the morning, he wished him
distinctly to understand, that when the Court of Common Pleas
had amended their judgment, he would be at liberty to make
any motion he pleased.
Mr. CAMPBELL—I am very glad to hear your Lordship
say so.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—What I wish you distinctly
to understand is that you are not precluded from moving the
Court.

PICATTDO V. AIIiCHADO

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE mentioned this application
which was made by Mr. Gurney, to discharge the defendant
out of custody, after an arrest for 100,0004 on an order of the
Lord Chief Justice. His Lordship said there were two grounds
relied on in this case for the party's discharge—first that the
affidavit of debt was sworn by the plaintiff, a foreigner, before
the British Consul resident at Csdiz ; second, that the debt was
described as so many pounds " sterling," without stating that
the money was sterling money of England. On the first point
there_ is a difference of opinion among the Judges, and there-
fore I will say no more upon it. On the second point, my
learned brothers think that the description of the debt is not
sufficiently definite to ascertain with precision its nature and
amount; for my own part, I own that, on the best considera-
tion I have been able to give the subject, I have the misfor-
tune not to agree with them; kit I yield in this, as in ail
cases, with the utmost deference to their united opinion ; and
in this case I yield with the greater pleasure, because the ob-
jection arises to an order of my own. Mr. Gurney's rule, there-
fore, must be made absolute.
The rule was accordingly made absolute for the discharge of
the defendant, on filing common bail.