The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-24 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'SCOUR T, DEC. 23,

Roinziti v. ovEr.
Mr. WaKur rELD moved that the defendant might be com-
mitted to the Fleet prison for contempt of Court. The appli-
cation was founded on an affidavit, which stated the following
facts :—On the 28:11 of November, a messenger of that Court
proceeded to the house of the plaintiff; in order to serve him
with a subpoena to attend the Court. The officers having
knocked at the door, heard tile defendant declare from the other
side, without opening it, that he knew the business on which
they lied come, and that if they did not immediately go away,
he would blow their brains out with a gun which he had in his
hand. The officers thereupon, being alarmed, retired;- first;
however, having slipped the subpania under the door, and
called out loud enounh to enable. the defendant to hear that
they had served him with a subpmna.
Mr. PARKER was about to address the Court for the de-
fendant, when
Mr. WAKEFIELD observed, that the defendant could not
be heard until he had given in his answer to the orginal suit.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked whether Mr. Wakefield
could produce any authorities in support of his argument.
Mr. WAxEriELD replied, that he was not prepared with
any authorities at that moment; but he perfectly recollected
that there was a case in which the Court had refused to hear a
defendant under similar circumstances to those in which the
present defendant stood, because he had not entered his appear.
once in the original cause.
The VICE-OILANCEL Lon directed the motion to stand over
till next seal, to allow Mr. Wakefield to 'search for the case
which he mentioned.

IN THE MATTER OF ARNOLD, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. KNIGHT moved that his honour would be pleased to
request the Chief-Justice of Glamorganshire (Mr. M'ingfield),
who was in Court, to deliver his notes of a trial which took
place at the last Cardiff assizes. The facts of the case were
these :--Some time ago, Arnold became a bankrupt, but shortly
after a petition was presented to the Court, praying that the
commission might he superseded, on the ground that there was
no proof of trading on the part of Arnold. The Court consid-
ered the question a fit one to go before a jury, and accordingly
directed an issue to try the fact whether or not Arnold had been
a dealer and chapmau. The trial came en at Cardiff before
Chief-Justice Wingfield. It appeared from the evidence, that
Arnold, who was a half-pay officer, went to reside in Glamor.
ganshire, where, although be was altogether unknown, he ob-
tained a lOose introduction to the gentlemen in his neighbour-
hood. Ile kept a great many horses, and although some were
hunters and hacks, yet several were of a description not likely
to be use to any farmer or gentleman, because they were
blind, lame, or otherwise injured. It was inferred that
Arnold could only have possessed himself of' those horses
for the purpose of trading. One of the witnesses, Mr. Brad-
ley, a coachuiaster, proved that Arnold offered on one occa-
sion to purchase horses for him on commission. Mr. Bradley
refused to make tiny bargain, but said he would take the
horses if they Suited him. Arnold afterwards showed Mr. Brad-
ley some horses which Mr. Bradley declincdpurchasing, and he
subsequently saw them in a stage-coach belonging to another
coach-master. Arnold infOrmed- Mr. Bradley that he intended
to take out a licence to deal in horses. Evidence was oKred
of general declarations on the art of the defendant that the
only means by which lie could obtain a little money was
horse-dealing; but the Learned Judge was of opinibn that the
record was so framed, as to shut out evidence of that nature.
In his charge to the Jnry, the Chief Justice inclined to the opi-
nion, that the fact of the trading had been established ; hut the
Jury, after deliberating for half an hour, declared by their ver-
dict, that Arnold lead not been a dealer. In consequence of
this verdict, two petitions had been filed In that Conrt—one to
supersede the commission, and the other to obtain a new trial.
lc was in in furtherance of the object of the latter petition that
that the pris,nt nppliellthitl was MO.& .
The \ lANCELLO a said that he tbeudlit he must limit
at the not:s of the trial.

F. IVi:;GJ•ILLD undertook to 'tarnish' his Honour wide
!Cm.

This was the last day of the sitting' ot _the Court until after
holidays.

•
COURT OF KING'S RENO!, DR.. 23.
RIDLEY L. connYN..
This was an action for assault and battny. The defendant
pleaded—firit, that he did not assault or boat the Plaintiff': and
second, that the plaintiff' committed the first assault on him,
on which issue was taken.

•
The Com Stow r"Ell.ThatiT stated the case for the plaintiff.
It appeared in evidence on the part of the plaintiff; that he
was steward of the Margate steam-packet Called the London
Engineer, and.that the defendant was Captain of another Mar.
gate packet, called the Vietn.7. The parties mot at the Skip
Tavern on the 11th of September last, when on altercation en.
sued in cor,sequenee of Mr. Ridley having torn down one of the
placards of the Vietetv, posted at the door, when Captain
C°l-11i struck abtiscd him, and beat him so violently on
the head as to knock out one of his teeth,' and to break his jaw.
It was proved by Mr. Inglis, a surgeon, that Mr. Ilitilety'a jaw
was broken, and that he had sustained permanent injnry.
Mt'. GURNEY, for the defendant, expressed his confident
'hope that he shoal beable !we're the juitifleation on the re-
cord. For this purpose he called several witnessat, who repre-
sented the conduct of the plain-teas exasperating high de-
free ; who asserted that by first held his fist in the defendant's
ace; and who described 11r. Ridley himself, as admitting that
he had provoked the usage under which he was sufThring.
The Commow 8E113E404 T, in reply, yontended that the ba-
lance Of evidence, and the probabilitiei of the case, were with

his client, an old mnn of sixty, who had been cruelly trented by
n stout mnn of middle age, anti physical powers far superior to
t..

is own.

The Lonn Curtr.t, r4Tict left die Jury to decide whkh
part of the evidence was most worthy of credit, and to hive a ver-
dict on that conviction.
The Jury, after a short consultation, fbutni a verdict for the
pinintiff'--litunages 404.

811AWy.. DTIOOME, GVNT.

Mr. Sc....at.ETT stated that this Was an action on a bill of
exchange for 100/. by a grOcer againit an attorney. This bill,
accepted lay the tlefenclunt, was given by a young man of the
name of (lard to the defied:int, on account of board an4i
lodging. The defence was that Cllr. (*Afford Ltd given this.
bill to his uncle the defendant, Without valuable consideration.
A number of witnesses having been examined,
The Loan enter AttsTICIE thought, that if counter ac.
ceptances had been given by Clifford, that would be a valuable
consideration ; but if this bill was merely given us a security
under the bail-bond, then when Mind was surrendered that
bill should have been given up by the plaintiff: Another point
was, whether this bill was given to the plaintiff upon the gene
ral account.
Verdict for defendant.