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

BELL I% LORD INGESTRE.

In this case, whi,:b arose out of bill transactions
between the defendralt and the Newcastle Joint-stock
Banking Company, and related to bills drawn for
4,000/.rand upwards',
Mr. MARTIN obtained a rule for a new trial.

EXCHEQUER—(THIS DA.Y.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prim:s, before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Corm mon Juries.)
FEPENMEYER V. ADCOCK3.

This was an action brought by a solicitor to recover
the amount of his bill of costs.
The case occupied the attention of the Court during
the whole day, and was not concluded when the
Court rose.

COMMON PhEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sit tings in Banco.)
HUGGttNS V. BAILEY.
Mr. Sergeant BYL es applied for a rule to show
cause why there should not be a new trial in this case
°ll the ground of mis direction. This was an action
Baron
a malicious prosec u tion and was tried before Mr.
adaron Alderson, at th :e last assizes for Norfolk, when
the plaintiff was no! !suited. The defendant was a
farmer in the neighl- aourhood of Norwich, and the
Plaintiff carried on I Ise business of a small carrier.
011 the; 14th of De. ae,mber, the defendant's 3 barn
Was broken open an. I entered by four men, about
eleven o'clock at nigh, i. The defendant, and a young
Man who was living v r.ith him, on going to bed, heard
a noise, and the latter, having armed himself with a
loaded gun, they went: out together into the farmyard.
They there saw three xnen running across the yard
1° a direction from the barn towards the gate,
When the young ma a fired and wounded one,
named Brown, who Nv as afterwards deprived of his
il'g'ht. Brown was take nto Norwich Hospital, where
hei made certain statue tents with regard to his accom-
Nees who were afterv, ra rds convicted. In February,
1847, defendant met tl le plaintiff Huggins, and he
laid he could swear trial; he was one of the men who
attempted to commit a robbery. He was accord-
ilVY apprehended and brought before a magistrate,
"ml Committed upon t le statement made by the de-
fendant on oath. It al ?peared then that the defendant
4.°l' being examined as a witness at the trial of one of
he tnen, admitted that he knew on the day after
nggins had been col i emitted, that he was not one
°f them, but he did tot take any steps to stay the
trosecution. A true bill was found against
.„,,,buggins, and he was brought up for trial,
7ie° the counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Evans,
at once stated that tl 'sere was no case, and he
4.170 s discharged. The-if 3 being the facts of' the case,
(1e Learned Judge .t the trial of the action for
barrages said the plz Caitiff ought to be nonsuited,
seeause the defendant having entered into recogni-
nahlees to prosecute E Euggins, was bound to do so,
and
he might ha'? e some doubt as to his guilt,
.411`4 that the action era lld not be maintained unless
Re Plaintiff could und'sTtake to prove malice. The
esearned Judge observ‘ NI also, that if the defendant
d convinced of the it a tocence of Huggins, he could
g more than s pear at the sessions, and say
thereit was no case agai xlst him. Mr. Sergeant Byles
Zb.lnjited that when the defendant discovered his
tf;""te he ought at on eto have communicated it to
proper parties, and tut an end to the procution,
ands ited the case of T übois v. Keats, in wsehich it
7Peared the charge l au I been made maliciously, and
biswas held by the ( urt, that being under recog-
on as
was no defeat •E for going on with the charge,
tamed"le ground that the recognisance had been ob-
rnaliciously.—l 'stale granted.
DELIVERY OF A SO LICITOR'S BILL.—PLANDY V.
DUBOURG.
a This
was an action brought by the plaintiff, solici-
Lor t
trp the Oxford, The ..rne, High Wickham, anal Ux-
Ine`,l,FLe Junction Rails v ay, against the defendant, a
at
was of the managi e.g committee of that company.
at
Lias tried at Guildl before Chief Justice Wilde,
last sittings, an Cl a verdict found for.the plain-
agaizrt tthhee
eati)munopuanntyo.f 200/., the amount of his bill
Mr. M. CHAMBERS 1 1 ow moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict .hould not be set aside on the
.ound that there wa. no sufficient delivery of the
Plaintiffs bill at the de. re .ndant's place of business one
month
the st before the actio t a was brought, as required by
DOt statute, and also on . the ground that the bill was
addressed to ac
defendant, but to the pro-
visionalcommittee. It appeared that the
first meeting of the isampany was held at Carlton
Chambers, Regent-s street; after that at 43,
17i-00/gate-street. In December, 1845, no deposits
and
been received, it ceased to be a company ;
_ _ t was proved in rvidence at the trial that the
defendant had ceased Ira have any thing to do with it
after January, 1846. At the trial th l. • tiff's clerk
stated that in Septeml r, 1846, he deliveredePplaintiff's
the bill
to a clerk in the office of the c
gate-street. T werel and the envelope
at 43, Moor-
a tthe in
trial, which
aaidt
produced
was enclosed
coonmt
epnadneyd,
both of them were directed to the
as a body. The Learned Counsel c
first, that the defendat 1 t 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 " offic t of business," as required by
the Act; and, 2dly, t hat the bill ought to have con-
tained the name of th e person against whom the action
was brought.
The COURT entert: tined some doubt as to the second
point, but with rest )e ct to the first, they granted a
rule.

BANKRUPT' CY.—(T HIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Co nmissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE I). E. COLUMBINE.
To-day was appoir ',Led for the last examination of
this bankrupt, but
Mr. COOKE, who appeared for the bankrupt, put
in an order made by Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K.
Bruce, by which t he meeting was adjourned until
after the hearing ape tition in the suit. The Learned
Counsel wished to s tate, for the information of the
creditors, that very elaborate and voluminous ac-
counts 01. the bankra pt's affairs had been filed since
the last meeting, and which would no doubt be satis-
factory, for they we' :e as minute as could possibly be.
The official assign ee said they were only filed yes-
terday.
_ _

Mr. BAGLEY, 'vb o appeared for the assignees, said
they had not had Cix ne to ascertain the character and
nature of the acco' ants, and an adjournment must
have taken place. It was now only a question of time.
The case was tbel 1 adjourned till January 4th.