The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 24,
WALKER V. NEEDHAM.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS this day showed cause agains
the rule.

The COURT were of opinion that the preponderance of
former decisions was in favour of their Lordships' pre-
sent view, that the writ had been rightly issued. The
Court had the power of issuing such writs to the Sheriffs
to save time and expense in a case which seemed to in-
volve no question of law, and no intricate question of
fact, and it was laid down by Lord Coke and other au-
thorities that in cases analogous to the present
an action might be laid, either as one of debt
or of detenue. As to the objection that the
evidence of Roberts was improperly received.
It did not appear that the verdict in the mate-
rial part was founded upon his testimony, and the
evidence, on the whole, was conflicting. Their Lord-
ships saw no sufficient reason to disturb the verdict, and
discharged the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 24.
ELTRDEGIN V. POTTER.
The plaintiff in this case was the public officer of the
Bank of Manchester, who had issued execution upon a
warrant of attorney. for 20,0001. against the goods of the
defendant. A motion to set the execution aside was ob-
tained by Mr. Erle, for the defendant, cause against
which was shown by
Mr. CRESSWELL, who said there were three firms
trading under the name of Potter—viz., Richard Potter,
G. and S. Potter, and Michael Potter and Co. The
three firms banked with the Bank of Manchester, and all
were considerably indebted to it. Michael Potter and Co.
were calico printers, and in June last were in very bad
credit. The firm was in such bad odour in the mercan-
tile world, that they were unable to obtain calico to carry
on their business. An arrangement was entered into,
under which one of the Proprietors of the Bank, who
was a calico manufacturer, was to supply them with goods
for printing, and a warrant of attorney was given as se-
security. The question in dispute was, whether the war-
rant of attorney covered the sums due to the bank when
it was given, or whether it was only to cover sums to be
advanced in future. Mr. Erie admitted that upon the
affidavits filed upon the part of the bank, he would not
support the rule, which was then discharged with costs.
Mr. Cresswell then appeared for
.the Sheriff, who
was in possession of property which originally cost
upwards of 40,0001.

Mr. PLATT and Mr. WATsoN appeared for the assig-
nees of the defendants, and Mr. ERLE for the defendants.
After a long consultation the Court allowed the parties
a fortnight to conic to some arrangement for the sale of
the property in any way that would be most for the be-
nefit of the estate. If in that period they could not agree,
then the Sheriff was to sell and bring the nett proceeds
into Court.

POPPLETON V. WILLIAMSON.

•
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to set aside an
award made in this case. Ho appeared for the
plaintiff; who had brought an action against the
defendants, who were varnish makers, for a nui-
sance, his property being deteriorated by the works
of the defendant. Before the late assizes the parties
agreed that the cause, and all matters in difference be-
tween them, should be referred to arbitrators. The arbi-
trators were appointed in the month of July, and they
made an appointment for a meeting to be held on the
3d of August. The plaintiff communicated with his at-
torney, who had so many engagements on hand that he
could not attend to the matter for a fortnight from that
period. The attorney wrote to the arbitrators to that
effect, and asked for an adjournment during that period.
He received no answer, and then he applied to
the solicitor for the defendants, but was informed by
him that he intended to press the arbitrators for a deci-
sion. He again wrote to the arbitrators, and they made
an appointment for the 10th of August, and they said
it should then be peremptory. The plaintiff's attorney
again wrote to them to say he coud not attend, but they
took no notice—they proceeded with the arbitration,
although the plaintiff did not appear - either by
himself; counsel, or witnesses ; neither were there any
witnesses examined on the part of the defendant, yet
they awarded that upon the payment of 9151. by the de-
fendants to the plaintiff; he should convey the property
in question, consisting of three houses, with out-build-
ings, to them, whereas, only two years before, two of the
houses had been valued at 1,000
,guineas. He
contended that the arbitrators. ,4fici misconducted
themselves by proceeding with st) ,flk_u.pll precipitancy.
Although upon the face of the award it appeared as if
the parties had been heard, the affidavit showed that nei-
ther upon the 3d or the 10th of August was either the
plaintiff or any one for him present. It further appeared
that the plaintiff vas induced to enter into the reference
by one of the parties who was afterwards appointed as
arbitrator for the defendant, and he was the party who
had previously valued the property at 1,400/.
Rule nisi granted.

PAGE V. VINCENT.
The defendant in this case was a shareholder in the
Egremont Steam Packet Company at Liverpool. It was
resolved at a meeting that some additional capital should
be raised, to which he (defendant) refused to subscribe,
and an action was brought against him by one
of the creditors of the concern. On a former day,
Mr. Cresswell obtained a rule nisi, calling upon Mr.
Stone, an attorney, to show cause why he should not pay
the casts incurred by him in that action, on the ground
that it was brought at his instigation.
Mr. KELLY now appeared to show cause. The rule had
been granted upon what he must call a very rash affi-
davit made by the defendant, which contained many
most unfounded imputations upon the character of
Mr. Stone. He would feel it his duty to enter at
some length into them, unless, as he expected would be
the case, his Learned Friend would admit that his affi-
davit had been fully answered and his client mistaken.
Mr. CRESSWELL—Of course each of them would do
their duty and make as strong a case as possible on be-
half of their respective clients, and if the matter was
to be gone into he would have as harsh things
to say of the client of his Learned Friend. He
at once admitted that he did not expect that
the Court would make his rule absolute. The defendant
had proceeded upon information he received, that Mr.
Page knew nothing of the, bringing of the action ; he
was also informed that that gentleman, partner of
Mr. Graham, knew nothing of it ; but it now ap-
peared that, although he knew nothing of the bring-
ing of the action, he was afterwards informed of it,
and had adopted the proceeding. That made an im-
portant alteration in the state of facts, and although Mr.
Stone admitted that the action was brought at his insti-
gation on the part of other Shareholders, denying of
course any fraudulent motives, he did not expect to make
the rule absolute.

Mr. KELLY did not admit the statement of his Learned
Friend, but it would be better to abstain from discussing
any of the matters unless all all were to be gone into.
The action was not commenced without authority,
and the other imputations thrown upon the character
of Mr. Stone were equally unfounded. It was the se-
cretary to the Company who gave the instructions for
bringing the action, and he carried the message from the
Company, and not from any individual Director.
Baron PARKE—The only question now is as to costs.
ir. CRESSWELL—The Court were well aware that a
case assumed a very different colour according as the
affidavits ,are morn first or last. As he had no hope of
making the rule absolute, he must leave theluestion of
costs to the Court.—Bule discharged, with costs.

QUEEN V. THE MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. moved for a rule to discharge all the pro-
ceedings taken in this Court upon a deodand levied upon
some of the property of the above Company. The in-
quisition of the Coroner's Jury had been quashed in the
Queen's Bench ; his motion was, therefore, of course.—
Rule granted.

THE QUEEN V. HYLE.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause
against a rule obtained by Mr. Cresswell, for the purpose
of setting aside an inquisition taken under commission
issued, to inquire what amount of money the defendant
was indebted to the Crown. The defendant appeared
to be the Paymaster of the Cheshire Yeomanry
Cavalry, and was found to be indebted to the
Crown in the sum of 2,0861., for which sum an
extent in chief had issued. The ground upon
which the rule had been moved was that the evidence
given before the Jury was upon affidavit and not viva voce.
The Learned SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. WAD-
DINGTON contended that the inquisition had been taken
in the usual manner. They had affidavits that the same
course had been pursued during the last twenty years.
If the Court were to lay it down as law that oral evidence
must be given in all cases of Crown debtors, the Crown
would be placed in a worse situation than any subject,
and the proceeding by extent would be wholly useless,
for the debtor of the Crown, would have a full know-
ledge of the steps about to be taken against him. It was
true that there was a decision of the Court in 1822,
adverse to their position, but it had always been consi-
dered as bad law, and had never been acted upon.
Mr. CaEssWELL was about to support the rule, but it
being half-past bur o'clock and very dark, the further
hearing was postponed till to-morrow.
POL

ICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARYLEB OiVE.
On Tuesday a very respectably- dressed young man, who
at the station-house described himself as Mr. Benjamin
Vale, surgeon, Crawford-street, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Rawlinson, charged with the following out-
rage upon a lady named Foley, and another female :
Mrs. Foley stated that her husband was a solicitor,
residing at No. 33, Dorset-street, and that on the previ-
ous night, about ten o'clock, as she was returning
towards home along the New-road, accompanied by a
young woman in the service of a lady whom she had
been visiting in Milton-street, the prisoner and another
young man rushed between them in a most rude manner,
and struck both of them. She
_asked the.prisoner how
he dared thus to insult her, when he exclaimed, Pray
who and what are you ?" and gave her a violent push.
Being indignant at this treatment, she slapped his face,
upon which he struck her again. She went on till she
saw a constable, and on meeting one gave the prisoner
into custody. She was merely stopping for a moment to

applicable to only one portion of the borough. Upwards
of seventy persons had been deprived of their franchise
under these circumstances, and he trusted his Lordship
would grant a rule to show cause.--Rule nisi granted.

This was an action brought against the defendant, a
boatbuilder, to compel him to give up and restore to the
plaintiff a boat detained by him without just cause.
The case was tried bore the Sheriff of Middlesex,
and the Jury found for the plaintiff. Mr.
Sergeant Channell this term obtained a rule nisi
fur a new trial, on the grounds, first, that the writ
to the Sheriff was improperly issued, as to the jurisdic-
tion of the Sheriffs Court extending only to actions of
debt, whereas the present action was brought as one of
" detenue ;" secondly, that improper evidence was re-
ceived. The latter point was rested on the fact that a
person named Roberts was admitted witness, and that
the Jury found for the plaintiff• in the cause of action, on
his evidence alone, whereas they found specially that he
" was partner with Walker in the boat."