The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-12 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-WEDNESDAY

GURNEY V. KEENE.
This was an action to recover a sum of 50/., being the
amount of deposit paid under an agreement for the pur-
chase of a public-house. For the plaintiff it was contended
that the agreement had been in fact rescinded, and that the
plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to recover ; while, for the
defendant, it was urged that nothing which had passed be-
tween the parties could have the effect of putting an cud
to the agreement, so that the plaintiff had no title to main-
tain this action.—The Jury returned a verdict for the

FREEMAN V. ROBERTS AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought on Saturday last against
the defendants as Directors of the South Metropolitan Gas
Light and Coke Company, to recover the sum of 1,0001.,
being the amount of a Bill of Exchange, dated the '29th
January, 1834, drawn by William Clare, one of the de-
fendants, uron the defendants E. M. Roberts, G. H. Fos-
ter, James Foster, Frederick Blacksley; and Co., Directors
of the South Metropolitan Gas Light and Coke Company,
and accepted by the defendant E. M. Roberts for himself
and Directors. The defendants G. H. Foster, James Fos-
ter, F. Blacksley, William Baker, and William Lyall, had
pleaded that the defendant, E. M. Roberts, had no autho-
rity to accept bills for the. Directors of the Company ; and
that the plaintiff had not given any valuable consideration '
for the bill. Upon both which facts isoue had been joined.
The cause was to have been tried in Warwickshire, but it
had been agreed between the parties that the venue should
be changed to London, and a verdict found for the de-
fendants ; and that the bill upon which the action was
brought should be cancelled ; the defendants, G. H. Fos-
ter, James Foster, Frederick Blacksley, William Baker,
and William Lyall, agreeing to pay their own costs of the
action.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS appeared for the plaintiff, and
consented to a verdict being found for the defendants upon
these terms.

Mr. ARCHBOLD, on behalf of the -defendants, G. H.
Foster, James Foster, Frederick Blacksley, William Lyall,
and William Baker, stated that the Directors of the Com-
pany, to avoid the expense and trouble attending the trial
of the cause in Warwickshire, had agreed to the terms
proposed.

A verdict was accordingly returned for the defendants,

BAIL COURT.

WHALLEY V. PEPPER AND HARDING.
Mr. ALLEN, on the part of Mr. William Whalley, an
attorney of this Court, moved to show cause why the rule
for judgment in this cause, as in the case of a nonsuit,
should not be set aside with costs, and why the defendants
should not take short notice of trial for the sittings after
next Trinity Term, and why they should not pay the costs
' incidental to this cause, not being tried pursuant to the pe-
remptory undertaking given to the plaintiff, and why they
should not pay the costs of the present application.
The Learned Counsel moved, under somewhat novel and
extraordinary circumstances. He said the judgment which
had been given was obtained by a trick and in bad faith.
The plaintiff had brought an action against the defendants,
which was set down for trial on the 16th of April ; his
witnesses, who had been brought from Stafford at a great
expense, arrived in town on the preceding day, and on the
morning of the 16th, as the plaintiff was passinr, down
Chancery-lane, he met two gentlemen, with whom he was
in conversation, when he saw the managing clerk of Mr.
Alexander Wilson, the defendant's attorney, to whom he
expressed his intention of trying the cause, to which the
latter said—" Oh, you mean to try the cause do you—l
rather doubt it," and then walked on. The deponent, Mr.
Whalley, was on his way to Westminster, in order to be pre-
sent at the trial, when, as he was passing by Selby's door
(the sheriff's officer) two of his assistants presented them-
selves, and asked deponent whether his name was Whalley.
On deponent replying in the affirmative, Whitcomb, one of
the men, said—" I have a writ against you, at the suit of
Mr. Pepper, for 1,069!." He (deponent) insisted upon
their taking him before the Court or a Judge at chambers,
telling them that he was privileged from arrest, being an
attorney, but they refused to comply with his request, and
took him to Selby's lock-up-house. He was in consequence
kept in custody five days, and was then compelled, in order
to regain his liberty, to sue out a writ of habeas corpus. In
the interim, and during the imprisonment of Mr. Whalley,
an application was made for judgment, as in case of a non-
suit, which was signed, and the object of the present motion
was to set aside that judgment.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—You may take a rule nisi.

COMMON PLEA S.-( WEDNESDAY.)

LORD W. PAGET V. STOKELY.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of 1501.,
for money advanced by the plaintiff for the defendant in
Brussels. The defendant was arrested in London in No-
vember last, since which he has been imprisoned. The
money was advanced for the 'relief of some property of a lady
of quality through the agency of the defendant.

• His Lordship submitted to a nonsuit, and sent a discharge
o the Sheriff for the release of the defendant.

CONSTABLE AND ANOTHEB. V. TUFNELL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as executors
of a gentleman, named Robinson, to recover a sum of seven
hundred pounds. _

This action was brought to recover the amount of a ba-
lance due on a bond for 7001. The bond was passed for
L'2001., MO/. of which had been subsequently paid. The
bond was put in and proved, and that was the plaintiff's
case.

Verdict for the plaintiff-7001. and interest.

EXCHEQUE R.-WEDNESDAY.