The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-04 00:00:00

BELL V. LORD INGESTRE.

In this case, which arose out of bill transactions
between the defendant and the Newcastle Joint-stock
anking Company, and related to bills drawn for
",000/, and upwards,
Mr. MARTIN obtained a rule for a new trial.

EXCEIEQUER—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Common Juries.)
PEPENMEYER v. ADCOCKS.
el,This was an action brought by a solicitor to recover
‘"eftraount of his bill of costs.
The case occupied the attention of the Court during
the whole day, and was not concluded when the
k'ourt rose.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
lIIIGGINS V. BAILEY.
/Ir. Sergeant BYLES applied for a rule to show
why there should not be a new trial in this case
rEn the ground of misdirection. This was an action
ier a malicious prosecution and was tried before Mr.
Baron Alderson, at the last assizes for Norfolk, when
,e Plaintiff was nonsuited. The defendant was a
farmer in the neighbourhood of Norwich, and the
Plaintiff
carried on the business of a small carrier.
‘4l the 14th of December, the defendant's] barn
IZas broken open and entered by four men, about
Eleven o'clock at night. The defendant, and a young
lean who was living with him, on going to bed, heard
Ze2is‘e, and the latter, having armed himself with a
gun tl went out together in the farmyard.
'
ey there saw three men running across the yard
„n, a direction from the barn towards the gate,
„-,:441 the young man fired and wounded one,
d Brown, who was afterwards deprived of his
Out. Brown was taken to Norwich Hospital, where
made certain statements with regard to his accom-
Vees who were afterwards convicted. In February,
1:,4_,7) defendant met the plaintiff Huggins, and he
gir he could swear that he was one of the men who
• etnpted to commit a robbery. He was accord-
°`Y apprehended and brought before a magistrate,
itn,,
fe ;committed upon the statement made by the de-
o nuant on oath. It appeared then that the defendant
th being examined as a witness at the trial of one of
ue„ teen, admitted that he knew on the day after
itggins had been committed, that he was not one
rpt hell; but he did not take any steps to stay the
yiesecution. A true bill was found against
then
and he was brought up for trial,
t the counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Evans,
vatee stated that there was no case, and he
the ,-
Tseharged. These being the facts of the case,
Learned
Judge at the trial of the action for
bee:ages said the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited,
sane-Ilse the defendant having entered into recogni-
althoe,! ,to prosecute Huggins, was bound to do so,
aodWgn he might have some doubt as to his guilt,
the ).,"rat the action could not be maintained unless
Leglailitiff could undertake to prove malice. The
Was Cod .Judge observed also, that if the defendant
d 0 na,need of the innocence of Huggins, he could
there""ung more than appear at the sessions, and say
autoni,weais no case against him. Mr. Sergeant Byles
rnistaCetu that when the defendant discovered his
the Proe he ought at once to have communicated it to
and 6e! Parties, and put an end to the prosecution,
ppear—,". the case of Tubois v. Keats, in which it
wuelthe charge had been made maliciously, and
alisane held by the Court, that being under recog-
on tiles was no defence for going on with the charge,
tainede ground that the recognisance haul been ob-
i) Maliciously.—Rule granted.
ELI/Ear OF A SOLICITOR'S BILL.—PLANDY V.
This DUBOURG.

to
to the Oxford,
Was an action brought by tbe plaintiff, solidi-
bri
Gil, ,un.
Theme, High Wickham, and Ux-
tn 6against the d f ndant a
J
unction Railway,
Iternber f • committee of that company.
0 the managing
Was tried at Guildhall, before Chief Justice Wilde,
tne last sittin and a verdict found for the plain-
tiff f gs,
. or the amount of 200/., the amount of his
bill
atom].
0 rist the
Mr AL company.
tah. • CHAMBERS now moved for a rule to show
."'e why the verdict should not be set aside on the
g!ound that there was no sufficient delivery of the
aziPlaintiff's bill at the defendant's place of business one
onth before the action was brought, as required by
the statute, and also on the ground that the bill was
1,11? t addressed to the defendant, but to the pro-
isional committee. It appeared that the
first meeting of the company was held at Carlton
ha.9hanibers, Regent-street; after that at 43,
legate-street. In December, 1845, no deposits
having been received, it ceased to be a company ;
and it was proved in evidence at the trial that the
defendant had ceased to have anything to do with it
after January, 1846. At the trial the plaintiff's clerk
stated that in September, 1846, he delivered the bill
to a clerk in the office of the company, at 43, Moor-
gate-street. The bill and the envelope in which it
was enclosed were produced at the trial, and
both of them were directed to the company,
as a body. The Learned Counsel contended
first, that the defendant
defendant having ceased to be connected
with the company
in January,
1846, the place where
the bill was delivered in September,,, 1846, was not
the defendant's "office of business, as required by
the Act; and, 2dly, that the bill ought to have
vhom the action
con-
tained the name of the person against N
was brought.
The COURT entertained some doubt as to the second
Point, but with resp3ct to the first, they granted a
rule.

BANKRUPTCY.—(T HIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner GouLuuaN.)
IN RE D. E. COLUMBINE.
To-day was appointed for the last examindfon of
this bankrupt, but
Mr. CooxE, who appeared for the bankrupt, put
In an order made by Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K.
'Mee, by which the meeting was adjourned until
after the hearing a petition in the suit. The Learned
Counsel wished to state, for the information of the
creditors, that very elaborate and voluminous ac-
counts of the bankrupt's affairs had been filed since
the last meeting, and which would no doubt be satis-
factory, for they were as minute as could possibly be.
The official assignee said they were only filed yes-
ay,
tisMr• BAGL7,Y, who appeared for the assignees, said
3" had not had time to ascertain the character and
nature of th© accounts, and an adjournment must
taken place. It was now only a question of time.
The cue was then adjourned till January 4th.