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

THE ICING V. CHITTY.

Mr. ERLE showed cause against a rule for a quo war-
ranto, in this case, calling on the defendant to show by
what authority he claimed to exercise the office of Mayor
of Shaftesbury, he having been at the time of his election
an uncertificated bankrupt. The fact that he was so was
not denied, but there was no doubt that in all other respects
be was perfectly well qualified to fill the office. The ques-
tion here depended on the construction of the 28th and 52d
sections of the Municipal Reform Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the rule.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 11.
CORNISH AND ANOTHER V. KEEN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. CRESWELL and Mr. KNOWLES to-day concluded th•
arguments in this case.—The CovRT postponed its judg-
ment..

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—Nor. 11.
HEMING V. HECTOR.
This was an action of assumpsit for wines supplied to the
Westminster Reform Club, of which the defendant was a
member. The cause came on to be tried at the last Assizes
for the county of Surrey, before Lord Abinger, when the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 631., leave being
given to the defendant's Counsel to move the Court to set
aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the no-
minal damages. A rule nisi was accordingly obtained upon
the motion of Mr. THESSIGER, against which cause was
this day shown at great length, by
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS contended that the defendant
was liable.

Mr. THESSIGER having been heard in support of
the rule, _ _ _

The douRT deferred giving judgment till to-morrow, when
some other cases, involving the same point are be argued.
—Judgment deferred accordingly.

CROPPER V. KNAPMAN.-SAME RE SAME.

In this case a bill of revivor fora supplemental bill had
been filed by plaintiff, as residuary legatee under the will
of one William Gibman. The original suit was instituted
in this Court in the time of Lord Lyndhurst, C.B. The
bill was filed by the present plaiatiff against the defendant
as one of the executors of his testator, praying that an ac-
count might be taken of the assets which came into their
hands. In addition, it specially charged that Knapman,
one of the defendants, do receive a sum of 6501. which was
unaccounted for.

After hearing the arguments of counsel,
Hie LORDSHIP was of opinion that the supplemental bill
was properly filed, and the defendant admitting in his an-
swer that there were open accounts, it now became the duty
of the Master to take the account.—Decreed accordingly.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, Nor. 11.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-HOWARD V. COUSINS.

This was an action for false imprisonment, brought by a
labouring man against a respectable cow-keeper at Ken-
sington. Upon the pulling down of the house called Rut-
land House, at Knightsbridge, a sale of the building ma-
terials took place, at which the defendant and a Mr.
Taylor were bidders, and the former purchased the wood-
work and the latter the brick-work. It was given out at
the time of the sale that the plates or the bond timber
fixed in the walls should be the property of the pur-
chaser of the bricks, and upon that subject a dispute arose
between the two buyers. The question as to who was the
rightful owner was submitted to the foreman who was su-
perintending the sale of the property, and he decided in
favour of Mr. Taylor, who thereupon directed the plaintiff
and two other labouring men, named Kepling and Mar-
shall, to take away the plates in carts. Mr. Cousins told
the men that if they attempted to do anything of the kind
he would give them into custody for felony. Mr. Tay-
lor, upon hearing the threat, said to Mr. Cousins, " Oh,
then, I am guilty of felony, take me on the charge, as
they are acting under my authority." This hint was
not 'taken ; but the men, acting under the controul of
Mr. Taylor, persevered in removing the disputed ar-
ticles, and were given into custody by the defendant, in
the presence of from 50 to 100 persons. The policeman
employed to secure the labourers intimated that there was
no foundation for the charge : but the defendant insisted
upon taking them before a Magistrate, and they were ac-
cordingly, after having been locked up for four hours, charged
before Mr. Codd with having committed a felony by re-
moving the plates. The Magistrates, upon hearing the cir-
cumstances, said there was no ground for the accusation, and
discharged the prisoners.
Mr. KEATING, for the defendant, said that the whole
originated in a mistake, his client really believing that a
felony was committed, when, in fact, the act he complained
of could not have amounted to more than a trespass. He
called upon the Jury to give no more than nominal damages
in this case.

The Jury assessed the damages at 201.
This decided the cases of the two other labourer s wl o
had been charged, together with the plaintiff, with felon;,
and they were awarded 201. each.

COURT OF REV lEW; Nor. 11.
EXPARTE HENDRIE IN RE GOODWIN.
Mr. STURGEON appeared in support of the petition pre-
sentedin this case, which was an application on the cart of
the executor of an auctioneer named Willock, formerly of
Golden-square, Regent-street; for permission of the Court
to sustain a claim of 741. due to the late Mr. Willock for
putting up and selling the property of the bankrupt. It
appeared that the bankruptcy of Goodwin took place in
1815 or 1816, and the sale of the property was made in
185. About two months after the sale Willock died, and
no claim was made upon the assignees for the sum now de-
manded until the present moment. The reason why no
claim had been made heretofore arose from the fact that no
funds were in existence to meet any demand that might be
urde upon them.
Mr. SWANSTON, for the assigress, p'eaded the statute of

The COURT said that here a debt was due for eleven
years, and during that time no claim was male ; that being

Mr. J. Tidmarsh, a respectable tradesman, who resides
at No. 13, Eyre-street-hill, waited upon the LORD MAYOR,
to inform his Lordship of an attempt made to plunder him
of goods by a swindling firm, whose counting-house was at
No. 74, Teel-street, Liverpool. The firm had a short time
ago written to him upon a sheet of paper containing their
names and address, printed at top, ordering five hundred
gross of steel pens, and stating " we will give a check upon
our banker, and our terms are ready money." Mr. Tid;
marsh, suspecting from the style of the communication that
the intention of the gentlemen who favoured him with it was
to rob him, set an inquiry on foot, and wrote to them in the
meantime that he was ready to execute the order, but his way
of doing business was " cash upon delivery." In answer to
this poser he received a letter from the firm, mentioning that
they had already stated the terms on which they did bu-
siness, and that if he did not approve of it he need not put
them to the unnecessary expence of postage. This addi-
tional correspondence convinced Mr. Tidmarsh that he was
right in his conjectures as to the character of the firm, and
if he.seavit44-other:4lgumuis for ::withholding his goods, he
soon was supplied from the town of Liverpool itself, for he
received a letter informing him that they were known to be
a set of sharks—that they bad humbugged tradesmen from
different parts of the country distant from Liverpool, and
prevailed upon them to send goods to Teel-street, from
whence the goods were transmitted to Manchester and sold
—that a house at Leeds had transmitted to them property
to a considerable amount, and afterwards ascertained that
it was in the market at Manchester, and that the swind-
lers, in all probability, vrould 'exclude Liverpool from the
list of places in which they meant to plunder, for the pur-
pose of avoiding the disgnice..'of exposure upon the spot,
and being enabled in Liverpool to appear as merchants, the
designation which they assumed in their printed bills.
The Loan MAYOR said that the public were indebted to
Mr. Tidmarsh, for the intelligence he had given, and no
doubt the people of Liverpool would benefit by its commu-
nication.