The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-03 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

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

NOVEL APPLICATION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court for a
rule calling upon a Mr. Walters, an attorney of the Court,
to show cause why he should not be struck off the
roll. He was happy to state that the application was not
made in consequence of any misconduct on the part of Mr.
W., but owing to his having, while under articles of clerk-
ship, devoted a considerable portion of his time and atten-
tion to the management and conducting of a colliery. The
affidavits on which he grounded his application set forth
that in the year 1830 Mr. W. was articled to a Mr. Jones,
a solicitor at Swansea, and that while under articles, namely
in the year 1831, he was appointed by his father the mana-
ger and conductor of a colliery, at a distance of eight miles
from Swansea, at a salary of 1001. a-year, where he at.
tended daily, kept the accounts, paid the men, &c., &c,

He (the Attorney-General) submitted to the Court that
such attendance at the colliery prevented him from attend-
ing to the business of the gentleman to whom was
under articles, with the diligence and attention ,which
the rules of the Court required, and that, theref?re,.
on
justice and fairness to the profession at large, the applicati
he made to the Court ought to be granted.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—DO your affidavits state that
he was absent from the office of the gentleman to whom
he was articled one whole year ?
The ATTORNEY..GENERAL NO, my Lord, but they
state that he attended daily at the colliery, and kept the
accounts there, &c.
Mr. Justice LITLLEDALE—He might have done than
during his leisure hours.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—He had to go a distance

eight miles to the colliery.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—YOU may take a rule Nisi.
Mr. si'
After disposing of several other motions t
points of practice only, the Court sat at Nisi Prius to
try Common Jury causes. •

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

DAVIS V. CURTIS.
in priren na
more than twelve months for a debt not exceeding 20/.
Adlirs.chSaerrggeeatnhteAdNenfeanEdwanst,ahppolihedaviinngthbiseecnase for a rule
to discharge the defendant) he having been in pri!Ofl for
theo L.
Ie
Ia ecd.
IS7e,r gh eeawn ta tshoeor
teiftol reed contended that by t he. He
e 43.811 taha
in his hand the affidavit of the prisoner, stating the tour;
of his imprisonment and the amount of the debt. He!
mitted to the Court that, inasmuch as the statute-book;_
treecrmtedoftihmepdriissochnamregoet,ofaltthheoupgrihsohneermaifgthetr
notsuff ehrainvge
caocnierptieDa_
with the rules and orders of the Court,
or given notice,.
De
prisoner could not suffer by such proceeding, but
the 32 tt
discharged absolutely. d of
Mr. MAUNSELL submitted, that by
George 111. the prisoner was bound to deliverl:;
his schedule before he could be discharged.
order of the Court of the 12th of April had been obtain; ,
;09
directing the prisoner to deliver up a schedule witbi°
days. The prisoner had not done so, and the 60 &Id
had expired, so that if he were now to be dischargela
under the 48th George 111., the order of the Court alters
be mere waste paper, and the just claims of the cre
would be defeated.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS contended that the prisoner W. 1.:
not bound to make a schedule, as he was no longer witubl,
the jurisdiction of the Court, but he was entitled to an
solute discharge.
Mr. Baron PARKE, before whom the applicati°nd
made, said it was one of so much importance, that he vs:',"°o
consult the other Judges before he would give any 000
upon it.
The Learned JUDGE left the Court for a short time, °ad
when the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges ha
taken their seats the case was resumed.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS again stated the facts of the
case and produced the affidavit of the prisoner. 11° 3!):.
prehen,ded that the moment the twelve months hadlem
pired, the prisoner was entitled to his discharge. ner
words of the clause in the Act were—that every Pris°',"th
charged in execution in pursuance of this Act (the the4o
Geo. III.) shall be brought before the Court, nod der
Court shall, on the expiration of the notice afores,aid, °r
such prisoner to be discharged.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the question
r*
whether a party remaining in custody was within thema s
ing of the clause still charged in execution ? It wet
question of some importance, and one upon which there.°os
great doubt. Dri•
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS contended that legally the, 'for
toner was not now in custody. The rule now sour °t of
would have been applied for last term, but as the terra
ot
twelve months had not then elapsed, the prisoner could °
avail himself of the statute. hot
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The prisoner might. as
made an assignment. This turned the tables upon bg°'
far as the equity of the proceeding was concerned. have
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN thought that notice ought to
been given. If the Court did not require notice, any rto
soner might discharge himself by having the courage
make a false affidavit.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS said that there must he all T." f
davit of the Governor of the prison, who was aA offi°e„';
the Court, and there was therefore no fear of 'she pr's
discharging himself by a false oath. u.
Mr. Baron PARKE said, that in the case of Dave' aft
Crockett, in 2 Barnewell and Cresswell, it was laid d 0
a¢
that it was necessary in the first instance that notice °'
application this nature should be served on the plaintiff. ted,
Mr. MAUNSELL said that if this application were gr'Dity
the prisoner would be at once relieved from the nee's-
of delivering of his schedule. tber
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—There would be 0° bo
mode of dealing with him ; the only question thew t° of
considered was, of which of the two conflicting Arta
fioPalueg;dhlii
trah.mni s
ome
tnAttout the prisoner
schedule,as
Evet.ot hr
ceom t u
atedeonene
dgfiaeltindtott have
of either
seasititghi
one.rn the
this
eAn teet benefit,.a,osica
ti
the s
Pr's
propraoi
;Is oe
tior
toer
yt
withinis
the sixty
v ll
AduaGys. a
AN said that the Act conteMPlAptser
Mr. Baron
the possibility of a prisoner obtaining his discharge by °I; to
ing falsely, as the Bth section gives, in such case, rvie-
take the prisoner up again, and to proceed de 710210. ato
After some further conversation, a rule was grate der
show cause why the prisoner should not be discharged 0.00,
the 48th George 111., which will involve the whole queetijecl
There being no other business ready to be Pocee
with, the Court rose at 11 o'clock.
EXCHEQUER COURT.—(THIS

GOLDSHEDE V. CATTERELL. ‘T the
Mr. THESSIGER moved for a rule to shew cause w",,1001a
verdict of 4201., found for the plaintiff in this case,
e" si,"oela
not be set aside, and a non-suit entered ;or that it
not be reduced to the sum of 2101. alr,
The action was tried before Lord Abinger, what? 1420''
peared that the petitioner held an overdue bill i°!.l for
made by the defendant, for which he took two 1311"stoal
2101. each, in order " to take up," as the Ineni°ra° vet
expressed it, the larger bill. One of these bills Wasd
hie
paid when it became due, and the plaintiff ex itereo big
action to prove the original bill, which still reruainedtcoo;
hands. The Learned Gentleman contended that tut' 00'
tract contained in the memorandum was hindingld not
therefore the action upon the old bill for 4.201. c°ll
be
The sustained. t.
COURT doubted whether the words " to ta'%tioo
could be construed as "in lieu of." That was a te'fsctt
which ought to have been left to the Jury, and "-(15 (/'
of the original bill being allowed to remain in the IntA;des
the plaintiff would raise a strong presumption t.nr.3,11. the
a mere substitution of the two bills in place of one, le
purpose of gaining time. ;fit° the
Mr. THESSIGER said, if he were allowed, to go -dot
whole merits of the case, he would be able to shew ahe
was a ease of very great hardship, as Mr. Cotterell,
could explain why none of the bills had been paid. la be
The COURT thought the justice of the case w°u
satisfied by a rule to reduce the damages to 2101.
Rule granted accordingly.
'
COURT OF DAY )
, a
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES BUTLER, Abe
Mr. BACON on behalf of a petitioner, &Aiming ti? fo.r
creditor of the estate, a Mr. de Grouchy, aPPlrroo
liberty to have his case set dow n for hearing to-cored the
paper, and that an answer m', ht be filed. It aPPecia it ref
petitioner's
noto vaosinuesuriouss tioa
assignees. When the meeting for proof oifndtehbetsset°e°clSl,ol
before the Commissioner, the consideration of the, cilocthe
was ordered to stand over, till it could be ascertainea ctioe".
or not the decision could have any effect 'in theoice th;
and it being shown that such could not alto/. the allowe'd bt
assignees were appointed, and the peticioner prod Jo
vote. The certificate, in the usual manner, was: :11% thrtieo
the Commissioner, and the petitioner Was one
theol debts t`i;
chosen. Upon inquiry into the nrAture
Commissioner was of opinion that it was usaliveent c 1 e
appeared that the bankrupt was before in 17 that 'a
cumstances, and had been declared a bankrupt ;
ob.,aioej
then owed the petitioner 625/., and that haviegoncl, 0,,4
his certificate he applied for a further loan of wer,oritYoloub
obtained it upon the terms of giving a s
,01 /s°
the sum lent and what was previously owing;, la b- shouto,
The object of the motion was that Mr. De Oro
.ac 0.r.0
be at liberty to show to their Honours that its
ecles,ao,lo,ot
not usurious, and that a new election of aisle' ~ould
was ordered by the Commissioner for to-morrow, 5"
in
of
r._us.
be proceeded with. inter,,erso,_,
The COURT could not see any necessity fora..a,.r of t::),
the matter. If czamsel's opinion as to the vll
eoYdioget,,
first election of assignees was correct the r•°,,c, the r_b,
morrow would be nugatory, and could not '..sffe,:bace
rte
tioner. If both parties consented, they vr,jald
4,,,..erui0
jection to hear the case, but they would rdiake ,heir
rule, and they wished it to be understriod tb asso'l•
might not affect any proceeding in the choice of, argti
nees. The question of its legality could be hereatte
„es,
„,5 of id; for
On Wednesday evening die Reform— 0
near Oldham, dined together. Tickets had beaeco.ol 4jYa
seventy, but the desire to riarticipate in the rs !ver,
iris
moot of the evening was soA strong, that ticket et
.op,
to twenty more. The majority were freehoL '4,(1
county. Mr. William Halliwell occupiedj:
ported on the right by Charles Hindley, tes
on the left by Thomas Hopkins, Esq. des r 5 3.. rest
Jacko, the ourang-outang, of the JaTidinuubli°
at Paris, about whose indisposition so much p
had been felt, died on Friday last.