The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-26 00:00:00

GORDON MID GORDON.

In this case, which was partly heard on Friday, the Loan
CliaNcELLon said he had read the petition of the plaintiff
praying for a rehearing of the cause, on the ground that he had
discovered certain facts, respecting the third mat?lage of the
father, through whom the parties litigant claimed, in 1762. His
Lordship said that the petitioner complained also of the effect
of the verdict, on the trial of an issue at common law for the
purpose of ascertaining the defendant's legitimacy. The Jury
had found in favour of the defendant, and the petition ob-
jected to that finding. The petitioner complained also of the
decrees made by the Court in 1816, 1817, and 1018, and sought
to annul or to revoke them, on the ground that the petition on
which they were made had never keen signed by the Chancel-
lor. This, after the lapse of so long a time, and the several
decisions made by the Court, his Lordship could not grant,
because the whole objection was one of technical informality,
and nothing more. His Lordship then went on to state the
course of the pleadings, and alluding to one.of the affidavits,
directed that it should be re-sworn, and shown tor Mr. Heald,
the plaintiff's Counsel. . .• •
11Ir. HEAL") wished, to be understood, that when, uPon a
for Mer occasion, he had stated his belief that the affidavit now
mentioned wits a fabrication, he had not meant merely to give
his own opinion, but to express his conviction formed upon di-
rect proof. That pig ef.was contained in dociaments of
uuques-
tionable authenticity. 'He regretted that in family diq'utes
like the present it had been found' necessary to Ord any Imp::
ust4ornt,uP9P the memory. of persons who stood in the same
ai..;
greO of relation:4llp to oU the parties. This eiretlinstaneet» d
the cause a very disakrOable one.
The LORD Cias'ct I.r.oti.—" A :nest
' rainfol one, indeed;
And When you tturie'to read the affidA r It. Heald, you Will
'see an itanie hefvfeenotwn brothers' :that•avin make your heart
ache." His Lordship premised to give jtuigfU I%ent on
ItARFIELD AND NICHOLSON.
rfeD'
Mr. Ili:Ault mentioned this case, which involves the right of

publishing The" Architectural .Dictionary:, with a view of pro:.
curing the decision of the Court.
The:ona cIIANcELI.OII said he would give judgment on
Mondal.
The rest of . the day was occupied in hearing bankrupt peti=
tious of no.publie interest.

COURT OF KING'S 11ENCII; ArLY 21.
Refire the Loup Cif IEV JUSTICE arid a Ccornmon jury.

TUE AS
r. rSStrtedthEifis°tOli‘iile.ialnitjaletitlftnlt'.ruHvOermbr.fought by
-the'
-ssitgabnelet!koefepeTrh, "wirhalidiklp:eprntteuanitutactiigela.diaSotetnitidheareicd:rsfseotandbtaloes.nt.talk'ti!
jiwav a liorse which, Thu rtell
The proceedings under the commission were proved, and the
deposition of the defendant read in support of the plaintiff's
.efeantide.antl.stlttriitticiteitle,thana,tlakbeprotwoojelrieorsaet
livtYrv,.obneeenctte,onit,etor
etahmee dien-
the defendant's absence, and rode the horse, away ; but denied
having given any authority for Coopvr'S doing so.
- Thorpe, the defendant's hostler, remembered a brown
horse of Thurtell's being brought to his master's stable-yard:
It was afterwards taken away: lle was out when .111 r. Cooper
came for the horse; but he. met :him galloping up the Hay-
market.
Thomas Ceram 'rioted that" the value got` the horse, was be.
tween 401. and 50/.
- Fisher proved the demand of the horse Atm defendant,
who told him it was in the hands of etivpkr. Upon witness's-
remonstrating with him on the ifripropfTety ofhifthaving parted
with the possesion
,of the horse, lie replied 'that„ he knew alt
About it, and was indemnified: Another witness deposed. to
the same effect4'
The LORD Crityr,JuaTtcr; said, unlest.the plainaeould
carry the case further, 'he could not support an action' in
tmver. There wary no-proof of con ve talon' bY the defendant.
The assignees might perhaps have soave ,other remedy, but it
must be sought by a different, form of .
Mr. (I URN Ev wished the case to proceed.
Mr. Al AitnYATT said the' defence rested upon the two facts
of the horse having been taken away without she knowledge or
authority of the defendant, and that it hail been obtained from
Cooper by Thomas' Thurtell without any intention of paying
for it. There could be no doubt that if the latter fact should
be pubstantiated, Thomas Thurtellishad: no property in the
horse, and of course his assignees could have none. -Thurtell
and his late brother John had told Cooper over and over again
that it was never intended to pay him for the horse, and Tho-
mas Thurtell afterwards promised, that it should be returned to
to him. He then called

John' CoOper, who said, " I soldihe horse to Thomas Thur-
tell for t 5 guineas, and took .a bill.at one month, which bill
was drawn by Probert, who was present at the bargain. I soon
found the bill was good fornotlung; and 1 went about it to,
the Thurtells before it was due. 1 saw them in the parlour of
the Cock in the Haymarket. john Thurtell burst out laugh-
ing as Soon as he saw me, and said he thOught I had been wo
long on the town to let his brother Tom do me out of a horse.
Torn .was there too ; he burst out a laughing, and asked me la
take a glass of wine with him. Ile bade me not mind what his
brother sa id, fig that the bill should be paid when it became due.
The bill was dishonoured. I saw the Thurtelim afterwards ; John
laughed, and said I should never get a shilling, as he had told me
before., and that I was a fool for letting the horse go. I waited a
week longer, when I saw both of them again ; and Torn told
me he wou hi not pay me at all, and added an indecent expression
purporting that the bill was of no value. I had Thomas Thor-
tell arrested, and saw him after he was bailed. This was in
August last year. lie asked why .• I put hint to expellee, •as
I should never a shilling; and added, that if I had been
quiet, he would-have give me the horse back. fie then fetched
a bottle of wine, and said " Let us be friends; do you stay
proceedings, and ray your own lawyer, and you shall have your
horse again, provided you'll give a good character of me to any
one who may intloire ; but I want the horse for a week longer.
I did stay the proceedings, and asked. him. when. I should have
the horse. lie Kidd in about a Week, and he went and 'hewed

me where it was in How's stables. I waited a week, and on
the Sunday when I dined with him he said I should have the
horse on the Monday or. Tuesday following. On the Wednes-
,lwaynyr
Iwni;snlt into.il
ittlet
ler stable, at;
door.le, consideredled thehit
eeryorso a„ if I
d
im
in
timesbYll bttd I'. of Thomasbo" tt nyi st iratt:ei waain. s
—.that a 4' lhe
horseti i tfhaewdna:ze
ver
It;ltiLhiorstoe.ld
mecalrontst.oB..epxaayinnin)eedlyenllire..brol4tigulicit horse, anti
tronuticehhoiliny
How sonic days
before I took the horse that it had been mine, and was to be
mine again. I took my • own saddle and bridle. pow's- seer
vents said nothing to me, nor did I to them.
Re-examined-=l sold the horse for ill!. afterwards.

The LORD Cit LEV JUSTICE said. that unless the plaintini
Counsel could tro.ke any answer to ' this evidence, it was quite
conclusive. The plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.

ati,
het rtear oit
nod
re e r
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, .1.0 r. 24.
isad sat on be+th
BcArc the Lind (.'hic/Jaati+•e 11t.3•r and Speck!
'cosimit V. CUALLENEII.
Mr. Sergeant Pti.r. stated, that .this was an action brought .
to recover cortipeintation for a malicious prosecution instituted
by the defendant against.the plaintiff; on a charge of perjury,
alleged to have been committed in an answer put in by Dlr.
Conifer to a bill tiled against him in • the Court of Exchequer.
The circumstances out of which the case had arisen were briefly
these :—The plaintiff, in the year 1318, was in partnership
with a. person mimed:Evans, anti they towther carried on the
business of lea.dealerti and grocers. The defendant was en. •
gaged in ,the same business, and certain transactions took place
between diem, in consequence of which they claimed from hint •
a sum of 236/. Si. 11d. as for goods sold to him by them through
the medium of a third person, of the name of Freeman. The
defendant resisted the demand, and an action for that sum
was commenced against hint, which was tried before Lord
Chief Justice Dallas in 1819, and in which the plaintiff and
Mr. Evans, his •then partner, recovered a verdict to the full' •
amount of their claim. A motion was made in the Court of
Common Please to set aside that verdict, but the result being
unfavourable to the defendant, he brought a writ of error,
which experiencing the same fate, he .filled a bill in the
chequer, on the Equity side of that Court, for a discovery and
stay proceedings. To that bill the plaintiff 'put in an answer,
and it was dismissed. The defendant then•bled an amended
bill, which was disposed of in the same manner. Defeated
thus in every direction, the defindant then preferred an billet: .
merit against the plaintiff at the Sessions for perjury Tung!
in his ilsloatnpsrweessretdo, tlonte
into-the Court of King's Bench, and the r+•cord 'um
d were such
which
e
taken down for trial.; it WAR discovered that
original bill.
iTifthastetinundvicettimiet nbty,
cir)go;w4rlti
ported, and the plaintiff' was at (nice ob..
siltaartieatanceenstsbientwdeelenantshwe4aytehgaat tti(gainiiiivtialleciniut,tit,4,ltt.itiaie,nun_i_ti
eta.
should
here observe, that the acquittal, th011,4!P!',111
jections, equally gave the. plaintitir.,‘ 17001 tr ti"h
he should be able to ttlicw3
,;;;,Yr. books, that;
proofs, namely, by the t1etee9.1,P,,,ai0....bv .61w,
least one part of the answer prove the
Raul:llns,
fact, literally true- Al"1:10'' "":11c, remainder of the answer.,.
another manner, with rec:XerictP4-4.6-bksircing, that when he
The Learned St!rge2nt die•nuuratit- lie had :Awed, he. should,
ojhwau.dryet:ll:tealofiviotnivirasiootitt
t,llrst,e;lial;444_envrailierso:3o::::iv'iech,,,ot,,
IhllaiaLvteex,nelititic,sitle the
tledatrhpi;:tsiiigt;', ex.;latAll,ntbilaf,t, . •
,4(
ab of which lieu.
coltiimlstonplag e
tosl.don 1510.;:ritsnte :::1811141naily
stt~;atsuntiate
rc
tilt
larTallge. arranged
that the owe sauult .b on the full d' '
owing con di_'
this Court. against
tV;',.:jorlt defendant, a .cause aimilar to this, when the
,Ivry -04veN511.5(1°i:It. blattin'ilba:37loYn:ftihscessteddetlamagrit the plaintil'-
mbeyotnhsiesqaurernacnegotim-tletesine._traitnsajcutivon7 and other ex ere
ciunt's undertaking
ten thought, that as the plaintiff's object
ult'o.uaw: ia:yles:Aetylitineltdeciloits:tisornoe.lol:2l:l:ihncilltait:ricteternststinowtriht:oll.-
trials,
amounting to about 6001. pea
• ,
The .Clll 1. JU ST
.
01,
the course
noweat/CpUtrorr. with his 14erdsvybliT in the propriety

. .
Mr. GUTTIIthaE, of St. Alban's, the week 1)e-
-fore lath, disposed of a quantity of warden ground by sale, at
W4tt6td, for the astonishing sum of fifteen hundred pound&
ptt srt.