The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-24 00:00:00

822.

PRACTICE OF THE COURT.

The first of the bankrupt petitions having been called on,
" Expartc Bird in the matter of Stanton," Mr. HORNE, the
leading Counsel in the case, was not in Court. On a former
day an application had been made to the Court to allow this
petition to stand first on the list. The solicitor, on whose be-

half the application was made, was now called upon for his
affidavit, to shew that previous notice had b-.-:en given to the
other side. It appeared, however, that no such notice was
given until subsequent to the motion being made.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR wished ,every solicitor to under-
stand that he would entertain no motion to advance any peti-
tion or cause, unless previous notice of the intention to make
that application were given to the other side. If such notice
were not served, the application would be cx parte, and directly
contrary to the practice of the Court. In future he should listen
to no application to advance a cause, unless an affidavit were
produced, chewing that such previous notice had been given.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 23.
TILE XING Z. BARER.

This was an indictment against the defendant for a nuisance,
in carrying away and couverting to his own use the soil of a
certain public highway, called Union-street, in the parish of
Stepney.
Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. CHITTY conducted the prosecu-
tion ; and the COMMON SERJEANT and Mr. PARKE the
defence.

The place in question, which formed a sort of cal de sac,
had been dedicated by the respective owners of the adjacent
lands, to each other, and to the public. The road led to a
.Jewish burying-ground, and to the lands of the defendant,
who was a brick-maker. It was alleged by Mr. Alexander,
the Hebrew printer, and prosecutor on this occasion, that the
defendant had dug up the soil of the road, and carted it away
for the purpose of making bricks, and thereby almost destroyed
it as a road. This was denied by several witnesses, who proved
that the defendant had merely removed mud, and emptied the
water out of holes in the road, and filled the same with hard
materials, and had done every thing in his power to improve
the road, and make it passable.
The case went to the Jury under the directions of the Learned
Judge, and they immediately found the defendant Not Gailty.

FENWICK v. MORTRAM.

The plaintiff sought by this action to recover of Mr. Mor-
tram, who was employed by Sir W. Congreve to conduct the
fireworks in Hyde Park, on the evening of the Coronation, the
sum of 50/. for the assistance which he rendered to him an that
occasion. The defendant paid 111. 10s. into Court.
It appeared that Mr. Fenwick was at work on the spot from
Monday morning till Thursday, at an early hour in the morn-
ing till late periods in the evening. The materials for the
fireworks were supplied from the Ordnance, and Mr. Mor-
tram received 3501. from Government for arranging them.
A witness named John Cousins, who had formerly worked with
the defendant, was called to prove a specific agreement that
the plaintiff should have 501. for his labour. He swore that
Mr. !lortram, jun. entreated Mr. Fenwick to assist, as " it
was a good job, as all Government jobs were," and finally
consented to give SOL for his services. Other witnesses des-
cribed the plaintiff as " an artist in fireworks," and gave their
opinion that, as he had quit his business, 50/. was a moderate
recompense. One of his witnesses, however, thought two
guineas a day would be an ample reward.
For the defendant, Mr. Mortram, jun. was called, who posi-
tively denied that there was the least foundation for the con-
tract alleged and•swore that he employed the plaintiff as a com-
mon labourer. Mr. Southby, 'the director of the fireworks at
Vauxhall, and Mr. Winterborn, swore that two guineas a day
was pay which they themselves would have been happy to re-
ceive.

___ • __
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to decide—first,
whether a contract was made for the payment of NI. ; and if
they disbelieve this, then whether the sum paid into Court was
not a sufficient compensation for the plaintiff's exertions.
The Jury immediately tbund a verdict for the defendant.