The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

(Before Vice-ChancellOr VF Abr.)
HART V. HART.
HIS HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The plain-
tiff and defendant carried on business as partners up to
the month of March, 1830. About that time they agreed
to dissolve partnership, and a deed was executed for
that purpose. By the terms of this agreement the debts
owing to the concern were divided into two ports ; one
comprised good debts, and the other bad, or doubtful
debts. With respect to the good debts, they were to
be received by the defendant for his own use, on his pay-
ing the plaintiff 2,0001.. The bad debts were to be col-
lected by the defendant after the dissolution of partner-
ship. The bill , was filed in August, 1838, for
an account of the receipts by the defendant since
the 'dissolution of the partnership., The, defendant
admitted the deed, but stated that after the deed was
prepared, and before its execution, it.was discovered that
four of the debts which had been treated as good were,
in fact, bad, or doubtful. It was then agreed that the
2,0001. should be paid in a different 'mariner, and a second
instrument was executed. The defendant averred The
performance on his part of the agreement, and insisted
that the account sought against him should be taken on
the footing of both instruments. Objection had been
taken to.the admissibility of the evidence with respect
to the second deed ; and it was argued. that it could not
be admitted, because the original was lost, and there
was no proof that it had been stamped. He had
already expressed his opinion, that if the evidence were
received, the agreement set up in the answer had been'
fully proved. He now thought it rested with the party
objecting to the evidence to prove that the deed was not
stamped. After referring to several cases on this point,
his Ilmour referred it to the Master to " inquire what
has become of the agreement mentioned in the answer,
to have been signed by the plaintiff on the 6th of
July, 1830."
The Court was still proceeding with the cause of
Clayton v. Meadows, when we went to press.

QUEEN.S BENCH—(THIS DAY.)
The COURT gave judgment in the following cases ar-
gued during the present Session :--
HARVEY V. O'MEARA.
In this case the COURT was of opinion that if the
damages were reduced in the manner suggested by .Mr.
Kelly, there ought to be no rule.
LANE V: HEWSON.
In this case the question was whether in an action of
detenue the defendant should not have especially pleaded
that he bad a lien upon the goods. The Court
had consulted Mr. Baron Parke, before, whom the case
was tried, and. he agreed with them, that as the evidence
of lien might be given under the plea. of the property
not being that of theplaintitf, in actions of trover the
same rule would apply to actions.ofdetenue, and the rule
for a new trial therefore must be refused.

DOE DEM PRESFIELD V. SKIPWORTIIY.
The question in this case, which was tried before Mr.
Baron. Parke at Lincoln, was whether the unadmitted
lien of a copyhold could transmit the title. The Court
was of opinion that he could, and therefore the rule for a
new trial must be refused.
In the course of the day the new Lord Mayor, attended
by the city authorites, came into Court, and invited the
Judges, in the usual form, to be present at the entertain-
ment at the Guildhall that evening.