The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-23 00:00:00

SANDERSON V. PARKER.

Mr. ERLE moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum against the de-
fendant should not he set aside for irregularity, and why
all proceedings against the sureties should not be staved.
The application was founded on the Act Ist and 2nd Vic-
toria, chap. 110, sec. 8. An action was brought against
the defendant, and a bond for his appearance was given by
two persons. While the action was proceeding, the de-
fendant was rendered by his two bondsmen, and committed
by an order of Mr. Justice Coleridge. Now, the plaintiff
contended that the bondsmen had no power to render the
defendant before judgment, and having subsequently ob-
tained judgment against him, sued out a writ of capias ad
satisfaciendum, and served the bondsmen ssith notice that
proceedings would be taken against them. He submitted
to the Court that such proceedings were irregular, inas-
much as, in the case of " Ouston and Coates," it had been
distinctly held by the Court that the bondsmen might ren-
der at any time before judgment as well as after, and that
such render was to be taken as a discharge of bail.
The COURT granted the rule.
TETE QUEEN V. CROXON.

Mr. WATSON moved in this case for a writ of certiorari to
bring up the depositions taken before the Magistrates of
the county of Bucks, against James Croxon, and to show
cause why the defendant should not be admitted to bail.
The defendant had been charged on the oath of his father-
in-law James Leigb, of Little Marlow, timber merchant,
with uttering two forged bills of exchange, dated August
1840, and his depositions were to the effect that he could
not write himself, and had never authorized the defendant
or any other party to accept bills for him. On the other hand
he had the affidavits of John Griffiths, Henri, Griffiths,
and another, who deposed that they knew the prosecutar,
and had frequently discounted bills for the defendant, ac-
cepted by Leigh, some of which were dishonolired; but air
eventually paid by Leigh. They also deposed that the
daughter of the prosecutor, who swore that she Lad never
been authorized to accept bills for her father, had done so
repeatedly, and that these bills were paid by Leigh.
The COURT, after hearing some additional facts set forth
in the affidavits, granted the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LAW AND PENNELL V. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.

Mr. WIiATELEY showed cause against a rule obtained
by Mr. Thomas, for the purpose of setting aside an order
of Mr. Baron Rolfe under these circumstances :—The Noble
defendant had entered into a bond to pay 2001. as an an.
nuity to Mrs. Pennell, payable half-yearly at the common
Dining-hall of Lincoln's Inn, upon lives. By some ar-
rangement the money was paid through Gosling and Sharpe,
the bankers, who obtained joint receipts upon such occa-
sions. On the first payment for 1838 becoming due, a
receipt was tendered signed by Mrs. Pennell only, when
payment was refused. An action was thereupon commenced
for recovering the penalty of the bond. Upon application
to the Learned Baron, he made an order that, upon pay-
ment of the arrears of the annuity and costs, the plaintiff
should be satisfied. The answer of the noble defendant
was made by an affidavit of the bankers' clerk, which stated
that the money was, and had always been in their bands,
ready to be paid upon the production of a proper receipt.
Mr. THOMAS, for the plaintiff, contended that the money
ought to have been tendered to the plaintiffs—there was
no evidence that his clients had ever entered into any
agreement.
Mr. Baron PARKE.—You received the money from the
bankers upon several occasions, and gave the proper re-
ceipts—surely that is evidence of an arrangement.
Mr. THOMAS denied that it was so. Suppose the case
of a landlord whose tenant wrote to him, saying that if he
called so and so, his rent would be paid, and that he had
received it in that manner one, two, or three times ; would
that bind him for ever ? _ _ _

The COURT said the action appeared to be brought
against good faith. There had been an arrangement and
no notice had been given for putting an end to it. The
rule must, therefore, be discharged, but without costs,—
Rule discharged.