The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCId.i.

ROLLS' COURT, FEB. 2.
The Master of the Rolls sat yesterday in ,the Rolls'
Court, Chancery-lane. At the sitting of the Court
30 Town and b 3 Country Solicitors were sworn in before
his Lordship, and Masters Lynch and Rose.
Consent petitions were then taken, and afterwards the
remaining opposed petitions were disposed ot, among
which was one in a case of

DUFFIELD V. ELVES.
It was the petition of Mr. Wilton, vho had formerly
been concerned for Mr. Chambers, pra}ing that an order
which had been obta'ned, as of course, fur the taxation of
his bill of costs, might be discharged. The Master of
the Rolls, after hearing Counsel for and against the peti-
tion, thought Mr. Wilton was entitled to the relief he
prayed.
The Court will not sit again until Monday.

BAIL. COUR7, FEB. 2.

'Sittings at Nisi Priu,, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS
and a Middlesex Common Jury.)
ENVIN6 . OSIALDESTON._ . .

This was a qui tam action brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, the celebrated actor, to recover
certain penalties to which the defendant was liable, for
having performed stage plays and other dramatic per-
formances in a place not properly licenced for such a
purpose. It appeared from the evidence that the de-
fendant had been the manager at the Sadler's Wells
theatre in the year 1836, and that during that time he
had performed Macbeth and various other characters,
but there was no evidence to show that he had received
a salary for such services, although it did appear that
other actors had been paid by the treasurer.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The Attorney-General conducted the case for the
prosecution, and Mr. Kelly appeared for the defendant.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FEB. 3.
LEWIS V. REILLY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of
exchange for 301., brought by the plaintiff against
Thomas Watson and Patrick Reilly, who were sur-
geons, carrying on business in partnership at Kenning-
ton-cross. The defendant Watson suffered judgment
to go by default, and the defendant Reilly pleaded,
first, that he did not make the bill ; second, that he and
Watson were apothecaries and surgeons in partner-
ship, and that neither of them was authorised
to accept any bills without the knowledge and
consent of the other ; third, that the defendant-Watson
made the bill without the knowledge of defendant
Reilly, and through fraud, of which plaintiff bad notice.
The fourth plea was to the same effect, and the fifth
was that the partnership was dissolved at the time the
bill was endorsed by Watson, of which the plaintiff had
knowledge and notice. It appeared that the bill
had been regularly drawn by Watson in the name of
the firm, and before it became due the partnership was
dissolved. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
on all the counts except the fifth. A rule for a new
trial, or to show cause why judgment should net be en-
tered for the plaintiff non obstante veredicto was subse-
quently obtained, and
Mr. BUSBY now appeared to show cause agaiest the
rule. The issue which had been found in favour of the
defendants was, he contended, a material issue. Unless
it were shown that Reilly was cognizant of the accep-
tance of the bill, he could not be held to be legally liable.
The Learned Counsel referred to the case of " Sheriff
v. Wilkes," in Ist East, " Ridley v. Taylor," and other
authorities in support of his argument.
Mr. HUMPHRLYS WAS heard in support of the rule.
The COURT was of opinion that the}• were doing no
violence to language if they believed from the evidence
before them that the bill had been drawn during
the existence of the partnership. There was nothing
to show that the plaintiff had any notice of the dissolu-
tion of the partnership, and therefore the rule must be
made absolute.