The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-17 00:00:00

ALARMING ACCIDENT TO

BARON PARKE.

We learn with regret that this morning, about
10 o'clock, as Baron Parke was proceeding on
horseback to Westminster Hall, his horse took
fright in Hyde-park, near Grosvenor-gate, and
the Learned Judge fell with great violence on his
head. According to the account we have re-
ceived his skull was fractured, and he was other-
wise severely injured. A policeman of the A
division lifted him up, and had him conveyed in
a cab to his residence in Park-street, where he
lies in a dangerous state.
QcARTER TO THREE.
Since writing the at ove, We have made in-
quiries at Baron Parke's residence, and are glad
to find that the account of the accident is greatly
exaggerated. The left side of his head was
bruised, his left arm was also much injured, and
the fall was so violent that he lay for some
minutes insensible. No bones, however, were
broken, and his medical attendants consider.him
out of danger.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.;

(In Banco. )
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF DARTMOUTH.

In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the de-
fendant to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not
issue directed to him, and commanding him to insert the name
of Arthur H. Holdsworth upon the burgess roll of the borough
of Dartmouth.

Mr. KELLY now appeared to show cause against the rule.
The affidavit ot Dlr. Holdsworth stated that he resided within
a mile ot the borough (and of that there was no question), and
that Le occupied a certain warehouse within the terms of the
Act. Now he (Mr. Kelly) contended that the premises in
respect of which the applicant claimed to have his name in-
serted on the burgess roll, were not a warehouse within the
terms of the Act. They had been originally used as a ware-
house, but for several years past they had not been so occupied,
Mr. Holdsworth having retired from business. After hearing
the arguments of Counsel,
The CoURT was of opinion that the premises in question did
come within the meaning of the Act, and therefore the rule
must be discharged.

HARLEY V. CLEMENTS.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW moved in this case for a rule to set
aside the nonsuit and for a new trial. It was an action fur
work and labour done and for materials, the plaintiff having
been employed by the defendant to build a house for him.
The case had been tried before Mr. Baron Gurney at the
Stafford assizes, and the plaintiff's case was gone through with-
out necessity for the production of any written document. On
the part of the defendant a specification and estimate was pro-
duced with an agreement stamped, and on that the plaintiff had
been nonsuited. Now thedocument contained nothing which would
warrant such a proceeding unless that it contained a promise
in bchalf of the plaintiff to sign an agreement to execute the
work according to the specification and estimates, whereon he
had been called upon to do so. He apprehended that that
could not be treated as an existing agreement of such a nature
as would put an end to the action. The document might be
read in evidence, but it could not have the specific effect which
had been given to it at the trial.
The Court granted the rule.
MASON V. KING.
Mr. THESIGER moved for a rule to set aside the verdict on
the trial of this cause before Lord Denman at the last Surrey
Assizes, and for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was contrary to the evidence. The action had been brought
against the defendant, who filled the office of Sheriff, for ex-
tortion of the sum of six guineas in levying under a writ of
fieri facias, and a verdict had been given for the plaintiff.
Lord DE NMA N having read his notes of the evidence given
at the trial, the rule was granted.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. )
His LORDSHIP took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock,
and heard motions, none of which presented any features of
interest, for an hour. The Court then sat at Nisi Prius, and
disposed of several undefended causes.