The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-26 00:00:00

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT.

William Wingfield, Esq. Chief Justice, and Robert Mat.
thew Casherd, Esq.
Glamorganshire, Tuesday, April 6, at Cardiff.
Breconshire, Tuesday, April 13, at Brecon.
'Radnorshire, Monday, April ISO, at Presteigne.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.
Jonathan Paine, Esq. and Wm. Kenrick, Esq.
Anglesey, Tues..lay, April 6, at Beaumaris.
Carnarvonshire, Monday, April 12, at Carnarvon.
Merionethshire, Saturday, April 17, at Bala.

LAW INTELLIGENCt.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 25.
CLARKE V. LUCAS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from
the defendants, late Sheriffs of the City of London and Count/
•of Middlesex, the sum of 3701., being the amount of a writ of
execution issued at the suit of the plaintiff in May last, against
the goods of a person named Godwyn, and to which writ the
defendant made a false return of null(' bona.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. WILDE, and the
defendant's by Mr. SCARLET T.
It appeared that the plaintiff was the proprietor of a publici.
house called the Pied Horse in Chiswell-street, the good
which, together with the fixtures, he sold to a person nen'
Goodwyn for 3701., which sum not having been paid at the
time stipulated for, the plaintiff took proceedings against Gl-
wyn, and ultimately took out a writ of execution, which e
lodged in the hands of the defendants in the month of 31s1
last. About that time a Commission of Bankruptcy was talc°
out against Goodwyn, and the defendants suffered the assignees
to take possession of the fixtures, &c. which they afterward%
disposed of, and out of the proceeds paid 1201. due at the thve
by Goodwyn for house-rent and taxes.
The defence set up to this action -was, that Goodwyn had
committed an act of bankruptcy prior to the issuing of the exe-
cution ; to prove which fact a witness was called, and he state'
that early in May last Goodwyn and his wife were sitting in the
bar when Goodwyn saw a person named Odell come towards
the door, and he immediately got up, went into his back par'
lour, and said to his wife, " Here is Odell, mind I am not at
home." Odell then came in and asked for 5/. which Goodwyn
owed him. Mrs. G. said her husband was not at home, and
that she had not the money. Upon which Odell replied that
he had often been disappointed by Goodwyn, and that ne
should now take proceedings at law to recover his debt. The
commission of bankruptcy was sued out on the petition of 5
person named Kershaw, who held Goodwyn's bill of exchange
for 100/. payable with interest, and dated in May 1823, a WI
days previous to the date of the commission of bankruptcy.
The brother-in-law of Kershaw proved that he was subscrib-
ing witness to the Bill of Exchange.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see the
money pass from Kershaw to the bankrupt. In the preceding,
October Kershaw took the benefit of the Insolvent DebtorS"
Act, but he considered Kershaw enabled to advance 1001. in
May last, because he (witness) having previously got 400/. bf
the death of a relative, lent Kershaw 300/., out of whit'',
Kershaw paid the sum of 1951. for an oil-shop, which he had
purchased.
Witnesses were called to prove the trading of Goodwyn in
wine and spirits.
Mr. WILD, in reply, contended, that the Bill of Exchange
was executed by Goodwyn without having received any consi-
deration from Kershaw, who was insolvent, and therefore the
commission was fraudulent, and was taken out for the purpole
of defeating the plaintiff's claim.
His Lounsinp, in summing up, observed, that the Jai,
before they could pronounce a verdict for the defendants, must
be satisfied, first, that the defendants had carried on some trade
in wine, spirits, or other commodities, exclusive of his trade al
a licensed victualler, because a licensed victualler as a licensed
victualler did not come within the meaning of the Bankrupt
Laws ; secondly, that the defendant had denied himself to his
creditors ; and, thirdly, that Kershaw bad actually lent to
Goodwyn the sum of 100/. If they could not answer all these
questions in the affirmative, their verdict must be for the plain-
tiff for such sum as in their opinion would compensate him for
the loss sustained by him, in consequence of the return made by
the defendant to the writ of execution.
The Jury having retired for a few minutes found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 2501.
DOWLING V. HICKS.
Mr. SCARLET T begged to mention this case (which is an
action by Mr. Dowling, the short-hand writer, for a malicious
charge of stealing a Glasgow paper, containing a report of the
dinner given to Messrs Brougham and Denman, the propertY
of the proprietors of The Times), and to request that it might
be appointed for a particular day in the adjourned Sittings. lie
was Counsel for the defendant; and, as many witnesses were
in town from a great distance, who must attend again, he
wished that the precise day should be fixed when their attend-
ance would be requisite. He did not wish, however, to displace,
therefore
mpnrtoopnoJs
eudr ythcaatuistesehstandinge
tbaekfeonreoilti
etlhaes
tpda
apyer, an"
of the
Sittings.
The LORD CrixEr JUSTICE said that it would be better to
get a special appointment from the office, the day for which
be agreed on by the opposite attornies.
Mr. ScattLETT assented, and the subject was dropped.
The Sittings were adjourned to the 26th April.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEn. 25.
RICHARDSON a. MELLISH.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an East Indic
Captain, to recover damages from the defendant, for the breach
of an agreement entered into between the parties. The de-
fendant was an eminent merchant and ship-owner. The fol-
lov;ing is a summary of the facts of the case :—The defendant
had purchased a vessel called the Minerva, of which the plain-
tiff, at the time of the purchase, was captain. The Minerva
was chartered by the East India Company to perform four
voyages to the East Indies. According to the laws of the East
India Company, the Captain of a chartered vessel could not
be removed from his command unless on some special ground
of misconduct, or with his own consent. The defendant was
desirous of placing a Captain Mills, a friend of his, com-
mander of a vessel called the Marquis of Ely, which was
chartered to perform a voyage to the East Indies, in the
command of the Minerva. That could only be done by the
consent of the plaintiff, which was obtained upon the con-
dition that he should become Captain of the Marquis of Ely,
and that if Captain Mills should die before the charter of
the Minerva had expired, he (the plaintiff) should be rein-
stated in the command of that vessel. The agreement was re-
duced into writing, and the exchange of command was made.
After Captain Mills had performed two voyages he died, and
the plaintiff then applied to the defendant for the fulfilment of
the agreement, which the defendant refused to perform. The
present action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compen-
sation for the loss he had sustained by the refusal of the defend-
ant to execute the agreement. The agreement was produced
in Court, and it was proved by several witnesses that the
profits made by a Captain in a voyage to the East Indies
averaged 6,0001., and that in some instances they amounted to
10,000/.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 7,5001.

COL-MARKET, FEB. 25.
Ships at Market. Ships sold
27 Newcastle - - 11/
44 Sunderland - - 11

Price.
-31 s 6d to 40s oa
-343 s 6d to 441 Od