The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-04 00:00:00

THE SAN, LONDON. TTULTit§DA'ST, NOVEMBER 4. 1841.

, a ance
This was a petition praying for an increased allow
for the purpose a education for Earl Nelsonso,
that minor,th
now at Trinity College, Candfridge ; and al
cost of a reference made to the
laster to inquire whether
the late Earl had power to decree tke Dukedom of
Bronte to his daughter, should be paid out of funds in
Court. Ills Lordship said he should require details to
be furnished him before be decided as to the first part of
the petition, but assented as to the latter, with respect to
costs properly incurred.
HENLEY V. STONE AND OTHERS.
This was an action to set aside certain instruments,
en-
on
the ground of fraud. Plaintiff alleged that she was
titled to a small estate, subject to a mortgage of 3001.,
and that defendant Stone procured her signature to an
instrument, which he represented to be one to enable
him to collect the rents, but which was, in fact, a power
of attorney, authorising Stone to sell the estate on her
behalf. It appeared that, in pursuance of this power,
Stone had sold the estate, and that the purchaser had
assigned the mortgage. The present motion was to set aside
the instrument for fraud ; and that, on payment of the
mortgage mone, the etate might be
andse to the
plaintiff; the mortgage re-assigned, the defendant
pay the costs of the suit.
His LORpSUIP, after hearing Mr. Kindersley for the
plaintiff, and :\fr. Pemberton for the defendant, ordered
the documents t 45 be Cancelled, the otter parties relin-
quishing their claims on the estate; the amount of the
Principal and interest due on the mortgage to be ascer-
tained; the costs to he ascertained; the difference between
them to be ascertained; the amount owing one way or
the other to.he paid, and the matter thus linen.) settled
VICt-CLIANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 3.
__ (Befor,; the Vice-Chancellor of England.)

Ilis 'HONOUR was Occupied the greatei part of the
Thomirvg with hearing the case of a ward in his private
room• Ills Iloimur on coming into Court proceeded
to dispose of 4 of the unopposed petitions in his paper,
after which the'Court pri)ceeded to hear the further ar-
guments on the part-heard motion of

Tor.F.no r. VIETA.
This was an application for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from transferring the sum of 10,0001.,
vested in the F.nglish funds in his name, to Don Pietro
and Donna Clotilda, natural children of the Duke Del
Infantado, a Grandee of Spain.
Messrs. Richards, Lloyd, and Bennett, appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Bethell and Rolf for, the
defence.
It appeared that the:Dtke Del Infantado, who had
been a partisan, of Dort Carlos, having been compelled
at the commencement. of the civil war in Spain tO leave

the country, retired to Paris, where he afterwards con-
tinued to reside with Madame Josepha, Montegreso,.and
their natural children Don Pietro and Donna Clotilda.
Anxious to provide for those children and their
mother,. he had raised a sum of 400,000 francs on
his estates in Calabria, of which sum 250,000 francs,
or 10,0001., had been for greater security vested by him
in the English funds, in the name of the defendant, who
had been his physician and confidential adviser. The
plaintiff in this case, Don Emmanuel de Toledo, was
also a natural son of the Duke. Having adhered during
the civil war to the party of the Queen, his title to the
estates of his father had been subsequently recognised
by the Government of Spain. In the year 1839 he
had addressed himself to the Tribunal de Premiere
Instance at Paris, for the purpose of having the
deed making over the money in question annulled,
on the grounds that the Duke had been inveigled
into making it, and that he had not been at the
time of sound mind. The Court rejected the application
finding that the deed was valid and duly signed. The
Cour Royale in an appeal afterwards confirmed this de-
cision, but a further appeal had since been lodged to the
Court of Cassation, who had not yet pronounced
their judgment. It was contended for the plaintiff
that the decision of the Cour Royale was not binding in
this country, especially as that decision was now under
an appeal ; while it was stated for the defence, that this
latter circumstance could not affect the judgment of the
Inferior Court of France, as the Court of Cassation
took no cognisance of matters of fact, but adjudicated
merely upon questions of law ; and as an appeal to the
Court of Cassation could not by the French code stay
the execution of a decision of the other Courts.
His HONOUR deferred his judgment in the case, and
the Court then rose.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BRANDON V. BRANDON.
This was an application on behalf of several persons
to have the funds in the case in Court distributed among
them. The order formerly made directed that the funds
should not be paid out of Court without notice being
given to the sureties or their representatives. One of
the sureties had died, and as there was no party yet ap-
pointed as the representative of the deceased, Counsel
was aware that an order, such as he was directed to
apply for, could not be taken out ; but all parties were
desirous that the case should remain in the Court in
which it had been hitherto heard.
His HONOUR was not aware that he could make an
order to that effect ;but he could direct that the case
should stand out of his paper for the present, with liberty
to the parties to make such application as they might be
advised.
Some other cause-petitions, having no feature of gene-
ral interest, were disposed of ; in the greater portion,
however, on the list, the parties on the paper being called
over were not prepared ; and in consequence, the Court
rose at twelve aclock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
The Court sat at ten o'clock, but there being only a
few Cause-petitions on the list for to-day, and the greater
number having been directed to stand over,' his Honour
rose before eleven o'clock.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 3.
HARFIELD Y. O'MEARY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this case, which
had been tried before Lord Denman at the Sittings after
last Term, for a rule to show cause why the verdict for
the plaintiff, for 4781. lls., should not be set aside, and a
new trial had. It was an action for an attorney's bill,
and the circumstances were as follow :—The plaintiff
was employed as the attorney of Mrs. Dunn, as adminis-
tratrix of her husband, the late Major Dunn, and was
embarked in some Chancery suits. The business was
carried on during her (Mrs. Dunn's) widowhood, and
for some time after her marriage with the de-
fendant, O'Meara, which took place •in the
month of December, 1830. In the following year the
business wholly Ceased, and an action was brought
against the defendant, Mr. O'Meara, who had married
the administratrix, for business done before the marriage,
and for a short period afterwards. There were 16 bills
of costs sent in, and every one of these was made out
against the wife. Mrs. O'Meara, not at all recognizing the
husband, although it was denied that he was cognizant
of the business, and had given directions regarding it.
Now he (the Attorney-General) submitted that the action
having been brought against the husband without due
notice to the wife, in whose name all the bills had been
made out, the plaintiff could not recover, because it was
laid down in various law authorities that " the husband
cannot be sued alone for debts contracted before the mar-
riage." Even supposing there was a continuance, and
that the husband had made himself responsible for the
business done subsequently to the marriage, still it would
not make the husband liable if sued alone. The Learned
Counsel, after quoting several authorities, concluded by
Submitting that he was entitled to a new trial, or a re-
duction of the verdict to the amount of the business done
befo7e the marriage.
Mr. KELLY, for the plaintiff, had no objection to the
reduction being made, if that would put an end to the
case ; but the Attorney-General having declined to ac-
cede to the propOsition, the Court took time to consider
the arguments.
MOORE A§D TYNDALL V. COOKE.
Mr. CRESSWELL movxl in this case, which was tried
at the last York Assizes, a,".id in which a/verdict was had
for the plaintiffs for 901. on the first count, and for the
defendant on the second, for a rule to show cause why
judgment should not be entered for the plaintiffs non
obstante veredicto. The question tote their Lordships'
decision was one of some importance ag regarded the
liability of churchwardens and other parish Authorities.
It appeared from the evidence at the trial that a former
vicar of the parish of Pocklington, in Yorkshire, had
got some iron stoves, gas-pipes, and brass pillars, fitted
up in the church for the purpose of lighting and venti-
lating it. A subscription was entered into among
the parishioners for defraying the expense, but
many persons thinking that it might have been
done in a more economical manner, refused to con-
tribute, and he then paid the balance out of his own
pocket. Some time afterwards, the vicar having left the
living, and removed to another part of the country was
induced to remove these fixtures, and an action was ac-
cordingly brought against him, on the ground that they
were the property of the church. The defendant
pleaded that he had received the sanction of Tyndall,
one of the Churchwardens, for their removal, and on
that plea (the second) there was a verdict for the de-
fendant. The question for the Court was whether the
consent of one of the churchwardens, and the license
given by him, was binding upon the churchwarden, and
formed a bar to the action.
The COURT thought the question required some consi-
deration, and deferred its judgment.
MORRIS V. THE PRESTON AND WYRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. KNOWLES moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why a verdict should not be entered for the plain-
tiff upon the count for work and labour done. It was an
action brought by the plaintiff against the Company for
certain work done upon their line of railway. The case
was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman at the Lanca-
shire Assizes, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff upon
the count for goods sold and delivered, and for the de-
fendants on the other counts, with liberty to enter a ver-
dict for the plaintiff on these counts for such sum
as an arbitrator might deem proper. The defend-
ants pleaded that they were never indebted, payment,
and a set-off. It appeared that there was a
special contract entered into with the plaintiff to prepare
a certain portion of the line for the locomotive engines,
and this was marked upon a plan signed by the prin •
cipal engineer, Mr. Stephenson. Shortly after the con-
tract was commenced the plaintiff discovered that one
part of the line was in such a state that it would re -
quire a great deal snore work than was originally esti-
mated, and that 1w would be obliged to throw up
the contract, which would prevent the line being opened'
at the time which was originally contemplated. It was
then agreed that Mr. Stephenson and some of the Direc-
tors should go over the line, and see how the difficulty
might be obviated. It was proved in evidence that Mr.
Stephenson himself, after going over the line, had made
an alteration in the plan with his pencil, and it was
agreed that the plaintiff should execute that, as
though it bad been the line originally marked out ;
and farther, it was agreed that for the Work which the
plaintiff had done upon the original line, and which
it would be necessary to undo, the plaintiff was to be
paid. The plaintiff now sought to recover a verdict upon
the count for work and labour done—namely, for doing
and undoing certain work upon thepart that had been ren-
dered useless. It was clear that the plaintiff's claim for
that work could not be included in the special contract,
because the line was opened on the Ist of May, and at
that time all the work under the contract had been exe-
cuted ; but the portion of the work to which he now re-
ferred, was not completed till the 27th of May.
The COURT thought it would be desirable to see the
original contract before giving its decision.
NOVEL APPLICATION.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had been instructed in a
ease, the name of which did not transpire, to apply to
the Court for a peremptory mandamus under somewhat
peculiar circumstances. His application was against the
gaoler of the manor of Pomfret, commanding him to
deliver up the body of a person named Forster, for the
purpose le of having it interred. Foster had been taken
upon
gaol. Thewrit goafeleea.Br
the gaoler of the man ofe r andup
the
ed
body, died nu
9-'
had
refusedoarn d comtomdi Pomfret,tetl eivd to the custody of
the ground that Foster was indebted to him for neces-
saries supplied while in gaol, and had threatened to
n
have the body interred' the gaol-yard without the
usual religious ceremonies. lh
the body, application
and
adt
itohene had
Courty
iia d nwould? see
possible that
re
the
gpaaurltiaeusdmtaalkkieng the no power to en-
termedy unless the Court interfered by granting the pre-
sent
said it should be fully understood that
application.
Lord . a
gaoler had no lien upon a dead body. If there was any
lawful ground that could be urged for detaining it, of
course the defendant would not be in contempt, but the
peremptory mandamus must go in the first instance.
Rule granted.

CIIALLON V. GREY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
a sum of 151., being a deposit made by him to
decideee the
issue of a sporting wager. The case was tried befure
the• Sheriff' of Yorkshire, and a verdict was had for the
plaintiff for the sum cl4itned.
Mr. CRESSWELL now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground of the admission of improper evi-
dence ; and also that the bet was within the terms of the
Act, and of a strictly legal nature. It appeared that John
Eastwood and Benjamin Eastwood signed an agreement
for a trotting match between their two horses described
therein, for a sum of 25/. a side. The money
ortion was to be
deposited by instalments, and the greater pof
John Eastwood's share of the 15/. was deposit complete
by the
plaintiff Challon. At a subsequent meeting to
the stakes, Challon objected to depositing any more until
• a new stake-holder was appointed, he having discovered
that Grey was the brother-in-law of Benjamin Eastwood;
and Grey refusing to deliver up the deposit, the action
tugs brought. The.principal witness for the plaintiff was
iJohn Eastwooa, and it was contended that the bargain

being his own, he could not maintain an action in the
name of Challon, and be himself a witness in support of
it. The Learned Counsel cited the case of Ximenes v.
Jacques, for the purpose of showing that the wager was
strictly legal, and that the plaintiff had a right to have
his money back.—The Court granted the rule.
Having gone through the bar, the Court then took
the old new trial paper, and several cases were struck
out, the parties not being prepared, and the Court rose
at the unusually early hour of half-past three o'clock.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 3.
HAZLEWOOD V. BACK.
Mr. KNOWLES showed cause, on the part of the plain-
tiff, against a rule calling upon the Master to review his
taxation of costs in the case. The action was brought
to recover damages for the removal of the defendant's son
from the educational establishment of the plaintiff,
without previously giving one term's notice, according
to the prospectus. The defendent had pleaded three
pleas; first, no agreement; secondly, that the plaintiff had
not afforded proper instruction; and thirdly, that during
the period the boy was with the plaintiff, he was not sup-
plied with proper food. At the trial the first issue was found
for the defendant ; the other two were found for the
plaintiff ; and the Master had allowed him the whole of
the costs caused by those two pleas. He (Mr. K.) now
contended that the taxation was founded upon a just
principle, and cited several cases in support of his position.
Mr. WuiTEntiesT would not contend that the plaintiff
was not entitled to some costs upon the pleas which were
found for him, but he would submit that he was not en-
titled to the costs of the brief or the fee to counsel.
Mr. Baron PARKE—The matter is quite clear. The
plaintiff is entitled to the whole of the costs caused by
those pleas he chose to put upon the record. There
must be some check upon defendants, or by ridiculous
pleas they might put the plaintiff to great trouble and
expense.
MR. WHITEHURST had relied upon a case in which
the Common Pleas had restricted the costs to those of
the pleadings. In the case then before the Court, al-
though the defendant had succeeded, his costs amounted to
321., while those of the plaintiff, who lost the cause, were
only 28/.
Mr. Baron GURNEY—He brought it all upon himself,
first by pleading pleas which he knew he could not sup-
port; and secondly, by refusing to make any admissions
even of hangwriting.—Rule discharged.
BATTERSBY V. LAWRANCE.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, a physician
and surgeon, against the executors of a gentleman named
Besman, to recover 46/. for his attendance upon the de-
ceased; it was tried before Mr. Justice Maule at the late
Assizes held at Exeter, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
Mr. CROWDER now moved for a rule nisi to enter a
nonsuit, or failing in that, for a new trial. The evi-
dence was, that the deceased was suffering from a disease
in the heart, but it showed itself in swelled legs and
dropsical appearances. A surgeon named Tanner said
it was a ease in which it was necessary to have the at.
44.9tidance of both a physician and a surgeon. As the
plaintiff was the only one who conjoined both professions
he was -011 ed in, on the understanding that he was
to receive a guinea for three visits. It appeared
that he had attended—had done surgeon's work
in assisting to bandage the deceased's legs, and upon
two occasions he punctured them, but he (Mr. Crowder)
contended that the plaintiff had no right to maintain the
action because he had contriketed as a physician. He had
attended as a physician, had prewribed; as a physician,
and therefore could not maintain his action for fees as such.
The COURT were clearly of opinion that there was no
ground for a nonsuit. The evidence showed that the
plaintiff had acted as a surgeon as well as a physician,
and for that he had a clear right to recover.
Mr. CROWDER would then uLore for a new trial on the
ground that there was no evidence given to the Jury
of the acts of the plaintiff as a surgeon, to justify
the verdict. All the evidence showed was that upon
two occasions he punctured the legs of the deceased, and
once or twice assisted to bandage them.
The Colin. would consult the Learned Judge who
tried the cause before making up their minds upon the case.
JOHNSON F. M‘DONALD.
In this case the plaintiff, a soap-boiler in Liverpool,
brought his action to recover 35C1. from the defemients,
merchants in London, for the non-delivery of a cargo o'
nitrate of soda. It was tried at the late Liverpool As,
sizes before Mr. Justice Wightman, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY now moved for a rule nisi,
for entering a nonsuit. The question tUrned entirely
upon the wording of the contract. The sale, the non-
delivery, and the rise in price of the article we've ell
admitted. In the sale note occurred the words "to
arrive ex Daniel Grant," and according to the construc-
tion put upon those words must the case be decided.
The defendant had the ship named on the west coast of
South America, seeking a cargo of the nitrate of soda,
but, it being a precarious trade, she did not succeed,
consequently the defendant could not. perform the
contract. The question was, whether the agreement—
whether the words " to arrive," were not only a condi-
tional sale ? He contended it was, and cited various
cases in support of his argument.—Rule nisi granted.
SHARPE AND OTHERS V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.
This action was tried before Mr. Justice Wightrnan,
at the late Liverpool Assizes, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff, with 6621. damages.
Mr. WORTLEY now moved for a rule to show cause
why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
had on the ground of misdirection. said the plain-
tiffs were eminent machine makers at Manchester, and
had, entered into a contract with the Directors of the
Great Western Railway Company to make for them ten
engines, with their tenders, of the best materials and
„:nrkmanship, at the respective prices of 1,850/. and 4501.
By the,; contract, the plaintiffs were to be held liable for
the engines. !luring
can month's trial, and while they ran
1,000 miles. gines were all delivered, were tested
-.et, and settled for with the excep-
according to the coml.:•.Subsequent to the engines
Lion of the above-lalance.
having been accepted, the fire- u,7 of the engine, called
specification, that
the panther, burst.. According to the . thick, but
_ part of the engine was to be 7-16ths of an inc.. did
this one was found to be no more than 3-16ths. tA,
not impute any fraud or carelessness to the plaintiffs' but
he was prepared to show at the trial that they had got
somecopper, which was so impregnated with some foreign
matter, that by some chemical process, it had worn away
by the oxygen of the water. He contended at the
time that he was at liberty to enter into these particulars,
but the Counsel for the plaintiff objected that by the
terms of the contract the makers were released from
all liability the moment the engines were tested by run-
ning 1,000 miles, and the expiration of a month ; and
his Lordship, upon being pressed, acceded to his view of
the matter. He contended that the meaning of the con-
tract was that the engines should be tested as to their
working condition and strength, and the defendant could
not be concluded by their acceptance of them,
when, as in this case, they found there had
been a departure from the terms 'of the contract and
specification. When the engine burst it was found that
the boiler had iron fastenings, or rivets, in place of
copper ones. His Lordship would have allowed him to
go into that, but he (Mr. W.) refused to enter upon any
single part of his case. He submitted that he was enti-
tled to a rule.
The COURT was of opinion that, according to the true
meaning of the contract, after the engines had been on
trial for one month' and had performed 1,000 miles, if
they were then perfect and accepted by the Company,
they were concluded from all challenge afterwards. The
contract was fulfilled and the plaintiffs released. They
were of opinion that the Learned Judge was right, and
;herefore refused the rule.
MANLEY V. CRUMP.

The plaintiff in this case brought the action as the exe-
cutor of his brother, to recover the sum of 600/. upon a
bond, Oated in July, 1813, it was tried before the Lord
Chief Baron at the sittings in London:after last term when
the verdict passed for the defendant,
Mr. ERLE now moved for a rule nisi to set aside the
verdict, and for a new trial. The defendantpleaded pay-
ment of the money in the life time of James Manley,
while, at the trial, the plaintiff put in a letter from the
attorney of the defendant, in which, after eulogising the
character of Mr. Crump, said, that during the last inter-
view he had with the deceased, he said he would never
ask either principal or interest from him. Also, a letter
from the defendant, asking for an inspection of the bond,
in order to see when the interest was last paid, and pro-
mising a settlement, both propositions being at variance
with the plea. The verdict was clearly against the
evidence, which entitled him to a rule.—Rule granted.
DERBY CLUBS-WATLING V. DEWEY.

Mr. CRUMPTON said this was a case of trover, to re-
cover a card bearing the name of " Van Amburgh," a do-
cument belonging to the plaintiff', and forming part of
the material of :Derby Club. The action was tried be-
fore Lord Abinger in London at the sittings after last
term, when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 731. It appeared that the plaintiff belonged to
what was called a Derby Club, to the funds of which
member's subscribed. The names of the members were
put into one hat or bag, the names of the horses entered
to run for the Derby into another, a lottery then took
place, and whatever horse was drawn at the same time as
a member's name, that horse was considered, for the pur-
poses of the club, to belong to him, and if
that horse won the race, the holder of the ticket
bearing his name became entitled to the stakes. In
this manner the plaintiff became possessed of the
ticket in question. Being in want of money he pledged
it with the defendant for 5/. and he refused to give it
up. At the trial the defence was that unless the money
was repaid within a week, the ticket became forfeited,
but the Jury disbelieved it. It was also proved that the
defendant had said he would give 401. for it, and a wit-
ness deposed that it was worth 80/. He (Mr. Crurnp-
ton) was bound to argue the case simply upon its merits
in.lavr, as the Jury had been against him. , At consider-
able length he contended that the whole transaction was
under the Lottery Acts, the 10th William 111.,
chap. 17, sec. 1, which imposed a penalty of 20/. on any
one engaged in any kind of lottery whatever.
Mr. Baron:PAßKE—But here the whole had been com-
pleted, and the ticket whatever it was, was the property
of the plantiff.
Mr. CRUMPTON contended that without the illegal
acts the ticket was no more than a mere piece of waste
paper, and as such was worthless,
Lord ABINGER—But you lent 51. upon it, and offered
40/. It surely was worth something then.
Mr. CRUMPTON said he was then upon the law of the
case, and again contended that the ticket was worth
nothing, except for the illegal acts, and was therefore
not worth enough to become the subject of trover.
The COURT granted a rule nisi to reduce the verdict
to a farthing, if upon argument their Lordships took the
same view of the law as the Learned Gentlenman.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3.
Lo rdshi andpsrose uninteresting
shortly a
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
The Court was occupied, for little more than an hour,
with technical
'fntleor
tiol-15
'Their
eleven
o'clock, and
intimated that they would' take the new Trial Paper
'on- Saturday.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 3.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
His Lordship took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock.

_
THOMPSON V. MOORE.
An application was made to the Court for a rule to
show cause why an order made by Mr. Justice Wight-
man in this case should not be rescinded, and
why the writs of capias issued to the
Sheriffs of Devon, Somerset, and one other county,
should not be set aside. The writs had been obtained
on a representation that the defendant was about to quit
the country. The affidavit on which the present appli-
cation was made, set forth that the defendant was an at-
torney of this Court, ths.t he had taken out his certifi-
cate for the current year, and therefore that it was not
likely he would quit the country.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—That is not enough. An at-
torney may quit the country as any one else, and then
he loses his protection. Attorneys are not protected in
order that they may run away, but in order that they
may be here attending the Court.—Application refused.
DOE DEM. FLEMING V. AMFIELD.
This was a case of ejectment, tried at the last Surrey
assizes, in which, as no consent rule had been produced,
the lessor of the plaintiff had been nonsuited by direction
of the Learned Judge presiding at the trial, with leave
to move to set aside the nonsuit.
Mr. JAMES according]' this day applied to the Court
for a rule to show cause why the nonsuit should not be set
aside and a verdict entered for the plaintiff. The Learned
Counsel, in support of his application, contended first,
that it was not necessary that the consent rule should
be produced; and, secondly, that if an irregularity had
been committed, the defendant had no right to take
advantage of it at nisi Arius, but should have
applied to the Court previously to set aside the
issue. The defendant had pleaded after he be-
came aware of the irregularity, and therefore could not
take advantage of it. The Learned Counsel then cited
several cases in support of his argument.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—TaIe a rule to show cause.
Application granted.
DOE DEM. KINGSTON V. KINGSTON.
Mr. ERLE in this case obtained a rule nisi for 'setting
aside a warrant of attorney, on the ground, that when the
warrant was executed by the defendant, he was not at-
tended by his attorney.
QUEEN V. STOWELL.
In this case two indictments, which had been found
against the defendant at the Central Criminal Court, had
been removed into this Court by certiorari.
Mr. GURNEY, on behalf of the prosecution, applied to
the Court to quash the first indictment, on the ground of
informality.—Rule nisi granted.
ALLEN V. WALKEWBY.
This was an action on a bill of exchange which had
been accepted by the defendant. It was tried before
the Secondary of the City of London, and notwith-
standing the hand-writing of the defendant had been
distinctly :worn to, the Jury returned a verdict for the
defendant.
Mr. JAMES applied for a rule to set aside the verdict
on the ground that it was perverse, and contrary to
evidence.—Rule nisi granted.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
POLICE MEDDLING.—ATKIN V. SIMPSON.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault
and false imprisonment.
Mr. PRIDEAUX having opened the pleadings,
Mr. THESIGER stated the case to the jury. The plain-
tiff was a gentleman studying for the bar, and on the 9th
of May had accompanied a friend. Mr. Prior, the barrister,
on a walk to Kensington. At about four o'clock in the
afternoon they entered the Black Lion Tavern, kept by
the defendant, and ordered some refreshment, among
other things some lamb, for which they agreed to pay
2s. a head. The amount they owed the plaintiff for
the refreshment furnished was 75., and they tendered 75.,
and 6d. for the waiter. The defendant said their reckoning
was Bs., charging them 2s. Gd. each for the lamb. Con-
sidering this an imposition he refused to submit to it,
and the defendant called a policeman and gave them into
custody. When they came to the station-house the in-
. spector said he could not take a charge of refusing to pay
a reckoning, when the defendant gave them in charge for
creating a disturbance in his house. The Inspector
recommended Mr. Simpson not to persist in his charge,
Whereupon tile defendant said he would not do so if the
plaintiff wraild pay 3s. more than he had paid already.
This vvas refesed, and the plaintiff and Mr. Prior were
looked up Until Pine WPIPAt WhPll they were bailed
out.was heard rr h
eon Ilea griosltiro% 114141Prri glvd ssehPuj tdhiPt istjthe7sYegef:
Under these circumstances the plaintiff had brought his
action.
Prior, the first witness called, detailed the facts
of the P4Sa as Sta!ad in the opening speech of Counsel.
On his cross-examination, witnuss said that both him-
self and the plaintiff were Irishmen, but that ha W 44 4
member of the English Bar. They had agreed, first of
all, for two plates of lamb, at one shilling per plate ; the
lamb was to be shoulder of lamb, but they sent up bad
looking lamb, from the scraggy part of the neck. They
eat this all htit the bones, before the joint was
brought. The joint w the ahogider, and had not before
been cut. The waiter complained of their haying, after
they had finished eating cut the joint all tO pieces. This
was what he had been directed by the landlord to say as '
the reason of the overcharge. The waiter did not state
that the charge of 2s. 6d. was made because they had
spoiled the joint, hot because they had eaten so much.
Mr. PLAW—Was there anything ieft All lint ?
Witness—More than you would eat.—(4 Wig 0' Wits
ness asked the landlord if ha thought he was so green,
and said to him, Doea your mother know you are out ?
He said, Old chap, you want a nurse to take parts AP you,
Did not say, Don't you wish you may get your bill; old
fellow, Might have said, Don't you wish you may get it.
At the station-house witness said, you had better charge
for the two shilling plates, That did nut make the 10S„
because the agreement was for 2s. Perhapa he might
have said, in answer, I will add the two shilling plates if
you wish it. Witness was exceedingly quiet in the house,
Witness has brought an action. Does not know when
it is to be tried. Does not know that it was put off at
his own attorney's request. Mr. Atkins is now in Ire-
land, Witness gave instruction to bring his action the
evening after he returned from the Pollee-of ice.
Plaintiff did , the same, Defendant offered to pay
costs, and make an apology, but that was
unless he were paid 104 The
my offer. Mr. Atkin refused the costs
I::
only ha:-
s", that he should pay 101 to the
and an apologs
i‘not
i
terms witness offered we._ and make a public
-
charity fund of the Police Corn ~ ri:ley did not
apology. This defendant refused to do:,
offer the defendant their cards. They yeti; pct.
strangers to him. No offer for settlement was niatio
witness but through his attorney.
Re-examined—His father is Vice Provost of Trinity
College, Dublin.
Mr. A. W. Irving, attorney for the plaintiff, and also
for Mr. Prior, received instructions to bring the action
on the 11 th May. Mr. Prior's action has been post-
poned because Mr. Atkin was obliged to be absent in
Ireland during the early part of the term. All pro-
posals -for-arrangement took place through witness.
Mr. Simpson Called on him and offered terms of settle-
ment. Witness said he would see plaintiff. Defendant
proposed to make an apology, and pay the expenses,
The expenses were about 21. in each action. Witness,
after seeing plaintiff and Mr. Prior, proposed to settle
on defendant making an apology, paying the expenses,
and paying la in each action. The 101. in Mr. Prior's
case to be paid into the poor-box at the police-office.
Nothing was said about the 101. in the present case. Mr.
Simpson did not agree to those terms. He said he would
think about it, and witness never heard from him after.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Is quite sure that
Mr. Simpson was told the money was to be paid to the
charity-box. Did not say it was to be paid to witness
himself. It was not stated into whose hands the money
was to be paid. Has no memorandum of the conversation.
Supposes Mr. Atkins's 10/. was for himself. The offer
to settle for 101. was made on witness's second visit to
defendant.
Re-examined—Did not expect to be called as a wit-
ness in this case.
Cross-examined resumed—The attorney, a Mr. Simp-
son, called on me afterwards, but on the first occasion,
to the best of witness's recollection he was not accom-
paniectby the gentleman pointed out. Does not think
May, the attorney for defendant, called twice, but is not
certain. To the best of witness's recollection Mr. May
never called with the gentleman pointed out. Saw the
young man several times in the course of the action,
but will not swear that he ever in his presence mentioned
the poor-box.
Samuel. Hampton. police-sergeant, to whom the plain-
tiff was given into custody by defendant, described the
circumstances as detailed by Mr. Thesiger in his speech.
Mr. Prior proposed to go to the station-house, as he said
lie wanted a lark. Mr. Prior said they were lawyers,
and knew exactly how far the policeman could go.
Witness asked defendant if he had the address of the
gentlemen, and Mr. Prior said they had never been asked
for it. At the station-house Mr. Simpson said he had for-
gotten to charge for two plates. The Inspector asked if they
had created a disturbance. Defendant said they had.
The Inspector asked witness it there was a crowd at the
house. Witness said there was, and the Inspector took
the charge.
Cross-examined by Mr. HumennEsz—Witness said to
Mr. Atkin he thought he had better settle with the land-
lord. Mr. Prior interfered, and said, "No, I want to have
a lark." Mr. Simpson then went into his house.
The mob collected could not be off hearing Mr. Prior
saying he wanted tb have a lark. At the station-house
Mr. Simpson charged them with having cut and hacked
the joint in a very improper manner. They said they
did not see any impropriety in having a good appetite.
Inspector Brown, who took the charge at the station-
'house, corroborated the testimony of the last witness,
as. to the occurrences at the station-house. Mr. Simp-
son said he had no wish to press the charge if
they would
Pay for the refreshment they had had.
Witness asked the police-sergeant if there was a crowd
outside. The sergeant said Yes, and witness entered the
charge against them for creating a disturbance at the
house of Charles Simpson. The cell in which plaintiff
was locked up had no window. They were there an
hour and a half. When before the Magistrate Mr. Simp-
son said he did not wish to press the charge. Mr. Atkins
said then he should bring his action, and the Magistrate
said " You had better not." Mr. Rawlinson was the
Magistrate. Defendant entered into a detail of the cir-
cumstances, but did not press the charge.
Mr. Justice PArrEsoN (to tha witness)—lt is no
part of your duty to suggest a charge to any body. This
action is principally owing to your officiousness in sug-
gesting this charge. The police have an excellent nose
for smelling out a disturbance.
James Taylor, a sergeant in the Guards, who was
ill the room in which the plaintiff had dined,
stated, that the landlord complained that after gour-
mandizing a shoulder of lamb they refused to pay the
extra charge. Mr. Prior asked, "Do you think we are
green ?" " Does your mammy know you are out ?"
.. Has she done suckling you yet ? if so, you ought to
have a nurse." There was no other disturbance. Both
parties were irritated.
Cross-examined_Simpson did not attempt to prevent
them from going out of the room.

Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, asked what did the
case amount to ? The plaintiff and his companion,
who, for anything that appeared to the contrary, might
be supposed not to have dined for two days, went into
the plaintiff's house, and with a caution which gentlemen
in their state did not usually adopt, they bargained before-
hand, and on the landlord remonstrating with them on
their spoiling the joint, and charging 6d. a-piece more than
agreed for,,,Mr. Prior used language which no gentle-
man at thetßar could be supposed to use. Could Mr.
Simpson imagine that persons making use of the slang
of pickpockets could be moving in the situation of gen-
tlemen ? However, he did not give them in charge;
they proceeded voluntarily to the Station House,
so that there, could be no pretence for the action up to that
time. ' Arrived at the Station-house the Inspector
suggested the charge which was made, and Mr.
Simpson, who was no lawyer, signed the charge
which had been booked by the Dogberry of the station-
house. In that he had acted in ignorance of the law,
and the verdict must go against him ' • but lie thought
that one farthing damages would amply satisfy the jus-
I tice of the case. The Learned Counsel then commented
severely on the conduct of the plaintiff's attorney in
sullyg out the writs before he had written a letter to de-
fendant, and on the conduct of plaintiff in endeavouring
to put 10/. into his pocket at the Expense of his unfortu-
I nate client.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, in summing up, said it was
much to be regretted that the subordinate officers of jus-
tice were not better acquainted with their duty ; had they
been so this case would never have been heard of. The
inspector had no pretence whatever for suggesting to Mr.
Simpson the propriety of making such a charge, and
even had Mr. Simpson voluntarily made it, the inspector
had no power to take it. The Metropolitan Police Act
gave great power to policemen seeing any thing im-
proper going on, but those powers were confined to the
police actually on duty in the street, and seeing the com-
mission of impropriety, but an officer at a station-house
had no power to lock up an individual because a person chose
to come and say this man has been creating a disturbance
in my house. He wished this was more generally known,
for people seemed to imagine that the police had the
power of settling every thing ; and he had recently seen
several instances in which serious inconvenience had
arisen from their improper interference,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
40s. ; costs, 405.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 3,
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES EBENEZER SAUNDERS.
This day being appointed for the choice of assignees
under the fiat issued against' the bankrupt, who carried
on business as a linen Manchester warehouseman, at 48,
Friday-street, Cheapside, a number of creditors were in
attendance. After a lengthened discussion, John Covey,
Esq., of the Custom-house ; C. 11. Reid, of Wandsworth-
road, gentleman ; and Mr. G. Roe, wholesale boot and
shoe-maker, of Kingsland-road, were eventually Appointed,