The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-04 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

Mr. Justice LITTLIIDALRhe;rd motions in this Court this
morning.

Sir Wat. FOLLETT applied to the Court for a writ of certio-
rari, to remove an indictment for perjury into this Court.
The defendant was an attorney, and, as the Court were aware,
would be liable to transportation if he should practice as an
attorney after conviction. The case was therefore to him one
of the greatest importance. The facts were briefly these :
About four years ago there was a dispute between two pa-
rishes, which led to an appeal to the Sessions, which the Jus,
tices refused to hear. A mandamus was granted by the
Court of King's Bench, commanding them to hear the appeal,
and certain costs were incurred in opposing that rule, to re-
cover which an action had recently been brought, and on a mo-
tion to change the venue, certain affidavits were filed, and
it was on one of those affidavits made by tho defendant
that the alleged perjury was assigned. The dispute betwr.4en
the parties had been going on for nearly four years, ar under
the circumstances, he trusted his Lordship would ':nink it was
a case that ought to be tried in that Court.
Mr. Justice LITTLF,DALE—You may tp.',o your writ, and let
the defendant find bail, himself in one hundred pounds, and
two sureties in fifty pounds cull,.

The tame of the defendant did not transpire.
CURIOUS CASE.- --V. SLINGO.

Mr. PYLE moved to stay proceedings in this case. It was
an action brought to recover 9l• 15s. ; and on the trial defen-
dant produced a receipt far 9/. 18s., signed by the plaintiff,
who was consequently non-suited. The affidavit on which he
moved stated, that although the receipt produced was signed
by the plaintiff, yet it was given for a sum due to him by de-
fendant's father, although it stated, however, the money to be
paid by William Slingo only, without stating whether father
or son. An indictment for perjury had since been preferred.
and his application was to stay proceedings pending that in.
dictmcnt.

Mr. Justice LITTLECALE— YOU may take a Rule.
THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF CAMBRIDGE.

This was an indictment against the defendants for not re-
pairing a bridge.
Mr. AUSTRN moved that judgment be respited until next
term on affidavits stating that the defendants intended rebuild.
trig the bridge, but had not been able to do so, the contractors
having failed in obtaining the supply of iron necessary for that
purpose,---Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY.)

SITTINGS IN BANCO.
BARDEN V. THE BARONESS DE REFFENBOURO.
Mr. PLATT moved to set aside a verdict for 751., obtained
for the plaintiff in this case, and for a new trial, at the late
Assizes for Sussex, before Mr. Justice Gaselee. The Learned
Gentleman moved on the grounds of misdirection, and the
verdict being against evidence,
The plaintiff in his plea. said that the defendant contracted
the debt, and promised to pay, in the character of a femme
sole. The defendant denied that she had done so, and that
she was the wile of Baron Keffenbourg, a Counsellor of State
in the Netherlands.

Mr. PLATT said the whole evidence produced by the plain-
tiff showed that their case was very weak, and the counsel for
the plaintiff, in order to enlist the sympathy of the Jury by
telling them that the Baroness bad defrauded a great many of
the tradesmen of Worthing—in fact he introduced her as a
regular and systematic swindler.

A Magistrate and a Colonel in the army were called by the
plaintiff, who proved that they had met the defendant abroad in
the best society, where she passed as a married woman. They
then called the lodging-house keeper with whom the defendant
resided at Little Hampton, but in case of making out their
case, she said the Baroness told her she was a mar-
ried woman, and that her husband was alive, and re-
mitted money to her from abroad. It was also proved
that the defendant, so far from attempting to pass
herself for a married woman, she went to the plaintiff's shop
to purchase linen drapery, with a very young child in her
arms, and without being in widow's weeds. In fact there was
not one tittle of evidence in the cause which went to make out
the plaintiff's plea, yet the jury found a verdict for him. The
plaintiffs called several tradesmen from Worthing, in order to
prove that the defendant had bought goods from item, and had
not paid them. Not one of them even suggested that she had
represented herself as a single woman. Ho (Mr. P.) objected
to that evidence being received, but the Learned Judge over-
ruled the objection, of which he now complained. It was evident
from some remarks which fell from the Jury, that they were
determined that, under all circumstances, their friends at
Worthing should have redress. After laying their heads to-
gether they said, " We are not satiated that the defendant is a
married woman."

Mr. Baron PARKI—Did •not the Learned Judge tell them
that that was not a matter in dispute.
Mr. PLATT—The Learned Judge did make some remarks
upon the matter, but your Lordship does not know of
what materials a Sussex. Jury is composed, or you would
know it was likely to be of little use, They again laid their
heads together, and shook them—repeated their former re-
mark, and found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The COURT granted a rule Nisi.
Lord ABlNfigit said he could not agree in the remark which
bad faller. from Mr. Platt. Very excellent Juries were had
in Sussex.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

RYAN V. STACKPOOLE.

Mr. F. KELLY said that this case had been tried last Term,
and a verdict found for the plaintiff with 1,500/, damages, and
he now moved for a rule to show cause why this verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The action had
been brought to recover compensation for services performed
by the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant ; and the cir-
cumstances out of which the claim arose were in substance
these :—A great number of years ago a gentleman of the
name of Stackpoole, who had been ennobled in France
by the title of Count Stackpoole, was supposed to be
possessed of a fund amountinr, to not less than between
300,000/. and 400,0001., to which various individuals of his
family laid claim, and among oilers Mr. William Stackpoole,
the present defendant. The defendant considered that
lie was entitled in. his own right to a portion of the sums of
Count iltr,i'lpoule bad obtained possePAPP, r d)Ho also
claimed another portion as adminitilkips, rucl in other repre-
sentative ehitraPtell: in P:kt the present plaintiff obtained
an introduptiqn to tho defendant, to whom he was regow.
mended es an active and intelligent person, who INAeI4, be of
use in any agency business. In the middle Qf tle. year 1810
an agreement was made between OAP plaintiff and defendant,
under which the plaintiff was to proceed to rarist Anjd o;g4 he
performed, or 4ttompted to pOrfo;Th the orvicos out of
which the present claims aroiet aught to state that
the agreement that took place between the parties was proved