The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-04 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

trial,
WRIGHT U. ROBINSON.
was tried before
The defendant in this case had been a servant in the
a verdict
employment of the plaintiff, and his duty was to tick off
goods before they were admitted into stock, and to pay
certain demands for such goods. Having received notice
to quit—on making up his accounts it was fuund that he
was short to the amount of 3/. us. 9d., for which he
could give no account. The action was brought to recover
that sum, and on the trial before the Under-Sheriff of
Staffordshire, a verdict was found for the defendant.
o n lt.hhei sm
groundo nin
oguf
DOE
misdirection dCE
period he had
This was an action oiNorfieuicr'ttiongroannttehde aparrutleoffothreaJnuedwge,
Mr. Baron Parke during the late Assizes, when
was found for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now moved for a
ejectmentilNN E RENNET V. TURNER.
This
rule nisi
for a nonsuit, and from his statement it appeared that the
defendant had been in possession of the estate from 1817
up till MO—that during all that
Paid 0
rent. He denied that he had occupied it as tenant eitherl
yearly or at will, and therefore under the late Act of Per
liament, having been in undisturbed possession of the -
pro-
perty upwards of twenty
On behalf of the plaintiff
had been dug for the purpose o. b il
of Bennet during the years, he became the freeholder.it
%vast. provedud that some stone
fing a wall by order
possession _ ou. the defendant--
that the parish wanted to dig a drain in through part of
the property, to which Turnern objected, but on
plication to Bennett
had been planted upon
" tvithsedoesatea"lad
the
that the that some trees a P
37 Bennett. The
Learned Counsel contended these acts did not con-
stitute such ownership as to take the case out of the opc-

ana grantedththruele:ury
ge for 3001.
nvaerbvildlesnifrdaebxl
exchange
ration of the Statute.
The COURT said it was
and granted e that the case
LESLIE U. DELL AND ROBsow.
idinecra
irtnership With Rob-
found
This was an action
gm( n` to go by de-
fault. Bell defended
should be fully considered.
the
eulentiv used his ground that the
other defaindent had fraudulently , his name, and that
, it. At the
the plaintiff was aware -- last Term,trial before Lord
The defendant Robson
Abinger, at the sittings after
upon
aalclotivruneduju
for the defendant.
moved for a rule• :
Mr. THESIGER now .. a . nisi fora new
trial. It aftl a trcd that 711
son, as coach colliers. .
Bell
in
llwress n Cambridge, while
Robson carried on the busni.easrsm r London. The bill was
drawn by a person named 11 a , and he was the only
witness at the trial. He proved that Robson had been in
the habit of accommodating withhim
bills, t.:
which
were ac-
cepted in the name of the firm, but he could not prove that
Bell ever had any knowledge of the matter.
The COURT thought that, according to the pleas, the
verdict ought not to be disturbed.—Rule refused.
ACEY V. FURNEY.
This was an action upon a policy of insurance of 400/
upon the life of Charles Harman Simpson, which was tried
before Lord Abingcr at the London Sittings after last
Term, when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Sir F. Pc umcx moved for a new trial, and from his
statement it appeared that the policy was effected in Hull,
between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Greenwood, the agent in
that town for the British Commercial Assurance Com-
pany, on the 15th March, 1831. The course of dealing
was, that when the receipts for the premiums are sent down
to the agent, unless in fifteen days he returned them,
the Company tank it for granted tbkt the premium
was paid, and debited him with the amount.
In 1833 the premitun upon Mr. Simpson's life became due