The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-28 00:00:00

arisen from the whimsical view which Mr. Phipps had
taken. For the same reason the petitioners themselves
should be indemnified, and the consequence therefore was that
an order must be made that Mr. Phipps should execute the
power of attorney, and that he should pay the costs of the
petition.
Some discussion ensued, in consequence of applications from
the Counsel of the different parties respecting the costs, which
were subsequently ordered to be paid as between party and
party.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 27.
THOMPSON V. LEWIS.

It will be recollected that the defendant in this action being
a judgment creditor of a person named Holder, proprietor of a
well-known gaming-house in the Regent's Quadrant, seized in
execution several horses supposed to be the property of that
person. These were sold by the Sheriff of Middlesex, against
whom Thompson and the niece of Holder separately brought
actions, as fur an illegal seizure, they claiming certain of the
houses as their property.
The Sheriff, under the Interpleader Act, paid the money, the
produce of the sale, into Court, and made Lewis, the plaintiff in
the original action, defendant in those brought against him.
The case of Thompson v. Lewis was tried in London, at the
sittings after Trinity Term last, and a verdict found for the
plaintiff. A rule nisi, to compel the defendant to pay plaintiff the
money paid into Court by the Sheriff, and taken out by him
(Lewis) with the costs in the action and of this application,
was obtained this term, against which Mr. Sergeant Talfourd
now showed cause, when the case was ordered to stand over
until to-morrow.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 27.
HARRIS V. OBBARD.

This was an action for negligence, which was tried before
Lord Abinger in London, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, damages 201. In the early part of the term Air.
Platt, on the part of the defendant, obtained a rule nisi for a
new trial.

This morning his LORDSHIP read over his notes of the evi-
dence, from which it appeared that the defendant resided
in noble-street, Falcon-square. It was a narrow street.
The defendant used a truck in his business, which
was frequently left standing opposite his door. There
was plenty of room for waggons to pass when the truck was
drawn up on the pavement. On the day in question it was so
standing, and a waggon had passed safely on two occasions ;
on the third, the plaintiff was passing 4t, the same time, the
fore wheels of the waggon had passel the truck safely,
but the plaintiff, on some ground that was unexplained,
put his hand upon the handle of the truck which turned the
wheel of it round—the hind wheels of the waggon caught the
truck, knocked it round, arid pressed the plaintiff against tne
wall, whereby his shoulder was hurt.
111 r. HAYWARD appeared in support of the verdict. tie
contended that the defendant was guilty of negligence, first, in
putting his truck upon the footpath, which was a place for
foot passengers, but he further contended that it was even then
improperly placed, because a part of it was placed over the
carriage_way. . _ .

Thee COUILT were decidedly of opinion that the verdict was
against the evidence, and there must be a new trial on pay-
ment of costs.

111 r. H.sYWARD was proceeding to argue the case when
Lord ABINGEIL said it was a rule of the Court that there
must he a new trial when the Judge who tried the cause cer-
tified that he was dissatisfied with the verdict.
Mr. HAYWARD would not trouble the Court further.

Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, said theil;.citiOiii-feelin2
towards the poor man who had been hurt by his own folly.
He was willing to consent to a stet processus.
The Coy ax—lt must be on payment of costs.
Mr. PLATT—No, I can say nothing as to costs.
The rule for a new trial was made absolute on payment of
costs.

The COURT intimated that the new trial paper would be
called on Thursday, and rose at Two o'Clock.

SHERIFFS COURT, APRIL 27.
DAVIS V. BUTON.
This was an action to recover the sum of 131. 2s. 6d.
alleged to be due to the plaintiff for wages, she having
acted as servatit to the defendant.

The defendant pleaded not indebted, and witnesses were
called on the part of the plaintiff, who proved that the de-
fendant, who kept a boarding-house in the neighbourhood
of Fitzroy-square, in the year 1834, engaged the plaintiff
as a servant, at the sum of three shillings a week, and
the plaintiff remained in the defendant's house for sixteen
weeks, when she left without rectiving any wages; but
subsequently she returned to the defendant's bout., at the
same wages as before, and remained till the end of 1840,
the whole time she remained with the defendant, aniourt-
ing to 111 weeks, and the plaintiff, having received
31. 10s. 6d. since she last left the defendant, the balance
remaining was the amount cla;med. •

The defendant, a French woman, conducted her own
defence, and addressed the Jury, stating that she had en-
gaged the plaintiff as servant, but never agreed to give
her any wages. She was to board and lodge in her house,
and for this she was to act as servant.

The defendant then called her son and daughter, and
hey deposed to having been present when the agreement
alluded to by the defendant was made, and that it was al-
ways understood the plaintiff was to live pith them as ser-
vant without any wages.
The Jury retired, and some time afterwards returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff for the whole amount,