The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-12 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat in this Court this morning
for the purpose of hearing motions.

BOROUGH OF CARNARVON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court to grant
a writ of quo warranto, directed to Morgan, the
Mayor of the Borough of Carnarvon, to show by what
authority he held and exercised that office. It appeared
from the affidavits in support of the application that there
were a variety of grounds for impeaching the title of the
Mayor, and also of the Court of Aldermen, and writs of
quo warranto had been granted by the Court of King's
Bench against the late Mayor and Aldermen. As the
election of the present Mayor took place under precisely
similar circumstances to that of his predecessor, he (the
Attorney-General) trusted the Court would grant the pre-
sent application.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—You have stated sufficient—
take your writ.

THE TURF.--,WHITEHEAD, GENT., V. COLEMAN.
Mr. MARTIN showed cause against a rule obtained by
Mr. Wilson on Saturday last, to set, aside proceedings in
this case, on the ground that although two actions had been
commenced, only one cause of action existed. The Learned
Counsel said, that from the affidavits on the part of the
plaintiff, it appeared that there really did exist two distinct
causes of action ; the defendant's horses, Turfcutter and
Amadon, being entered for separate races, the one being
for a purse of 50 sovereigns, and the other for a gold cup,
where there were sixty subscribers, stakes 101. Toe special
pleader, by whom the declaration was drawn, had made a
mistake in the pleadings which gave rise to the motion of

his Learned Friend. Under the circumstances he trusted
that his Lordship would discharge the rule.
Mr. WILSON having been heard in reply,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE directed the rule to be dis-
charged, but without costs.

COMMON PLEA.S.-(THIS DAY.)

BILLINGS V. AMBRIDGE.

Mr. THEssioEa said that this was an action for an as-
sault to which there was merely a plea of " Not Guilty."
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 151., and he
now appeared to move for a new trial upon affidavits relating
to matters which had been disclosed since the trial. The
case was proved on the part of the plaintiff by one witness
of the name of John Colman, who described himself as
an engraver, residing in Windsor-terrace, City-road, where
he said he had lived and carried on his business for four
years, and he described certainly a very violent assault to havo
taken place. He said that the plaintiff, being a tenant of
the defendant, and being in arrear for rent, and a distress
having been put into his house by the defendant, he (the
witness) went with the plaintiff on the day of the assault,
to ask the defendant to make some arrangement, in order
to save the expense of the distress. They met the defendant ;
some conversation took place, and the plaintiff entreated
that some arrangement might take place, to which the de-
fendant replied, that the only arrangement he would make
was by beating the plaintiff, and punching his Lead ; and
the defendant upon this pulled out a handful of sovereigns,
and said that he would give them to the plaintiff, if he
would allow him to beat him for an hour ; and that the
defendant immediately collared the plaintiff, struck him
violently on the eyes, gave him two black eyes, a bloody
nose, knocked him down, kicked him when down, and hit
him over the forehead. All this evidence came upon them
with a very great deal of surprise, the defendant denying
that any assault had been committed. He cross-examined
the witness, and obtained information of his residence, and
then asked him whether he was not a person who was in
the habit of becoming bail ? The answer was " No, he had
never been bail more than twice in his life, and one of these
for his brother." He said he saw the black eyes very
clearly, and that there remained marks on the plaintiff for
some time. He (Mr. Thessiger) had a witness in the
Court, the daughter of the defendant, who would prove
that she saw the parties meet, but that she saw no
blows struck. But this was merely negative evidence
against the positive evidence of Colman, on which
the Learned Judge, before whom the case was tried,
Mr. Justice Parke, said that he (Mr.Thessiger) had better
exercise his own judgment and good sense, and accordingly
he, Mr. Thessiger, merely addressed the jury on the impro-
bability of the story of the witness, who stated that eight or
nine persons had come to the spot, attracted by the vio-
lence of the plaintiff. The Learned Judge said that he
(Mr. Thesiger) had acted very discreetly in not calling his
witness ; the impression on the minds of the jury was con-
siderably strengthened by the summing up of the evidence,
and the Jury very properly, according to the evidence be-
fore them, found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 151. da-
mages. Immediately after the trial, the defendant, who
had never seen this witness before, and who was satisfied
that the whole of his evidence was a falsehood, requested
his attorney to make enquiries. The attorney went ac-
cordingly to Windsor-terrace, City-road, a place con-
taining 50 houses ; he enquired at every house, with
the exception of one that was untenanted, and he could not
hear of any person of the name of the witness Colman. He
inquired of the tax-gatherer, but even he had never heard
of it. He inquired amongst the neighbours with regard to
the appearance of the plaintiff after the supposed violence
that was offered to his person, and they stated that they
had seen him continually for three months (the assault was
stated to have been committed on the 29th of August), and
that they had never seen the slightest appearance of black
eyes. He had an affidavit of the defendant, which positively
denied that any assault had been committed ; he had the
affidavit of the daughter of the defendant, who stated that
she saw the plaintiff and the difendant meet and separate,
and that no blows were struck ; and that she had never seen
the witness Colman, or any other person, with the plaintiff
when he met the defendant.

CHIEF JUSTICE—Does she speak to the same time
Mr. THESSIGER—Oh yes, there was no doubt about it.
The defendant, when the writ was served upon him, was so
utterly ignorant of the assault, that he thought it must be
from sonic irregularity in the distress, and he so instructed
his attorney. He did not know the cause of the action,
and the defendant's attorney applied to the plaintiff's attor-
ney to know the cause. He had also searched the filacer's
book, and there found that the witness Colman was described
as having offered for bail four different times—cer-
tainly not for his brother—and that on one occasion, viz.,
the 2d of December, 1833, his bail was rejected, and a few
days afterwards, he was found offering for bail for 1461.
This was a very serious matter, because if these affi-
davits were true, it was clear that the grossest perjury had
been committed. They, (the defendant's council) were so
taken by surprise, that they were not at all prepared to meet
the evidence of this person. They had had no opportunity
of making inquiry, and it was only accidentally in the pro-
gress of the trial, that he obtained materials for cross-exa-
mining the witness.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would look over the
affidavits, and speak to the Learned Judge before whom
the case was tried.