The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-18 00:00:00

COMMISSIONER LIN.-SAMLEI. V. RAWSON.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT moved for a rule to appoint 2
commission to examine witnesses at Macos, Canton, and
Chusan. There had been already two commissions is-
sued for the examination of witnesses on the part of the
defendant at Glasgow, Batavia, Calcutta, and Canton;
but neither of these had been carried into effect. In one
of them, issued in 1639, the name of a commissioner
was improperly spelled, and the gentleman intended re-
fused to act. The commission was accordingly returned
to the Court and amended. But on its being sent out in
1840, it could not be acted upon at Canton, on account
of the proceedings of Commissioner Lin.

The LORD CHle JUSTICR—You have not included him
in your commission now ?—;A laugh.)
Sir W. FOLLETT—No, my Lord, certainly not.
The COURT was of opinion that the parties applying
had not been in fault for the delay, and granted the np-
plication.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN, 16.
CLARK v. THE HAM, OF 11411RINOTON,

Mr. KELLY ( with whom was Mr. Cockburn) applied
for a rule nisi for a new trial in this case, which was tiled
before Mr. Baron Rolfe yesterday, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff, damages 141/. 15s. The I.4.mrned
Gentleman said it was a verdict which reflected much dis-
credit upon the administration of justice, and he was asto-
nished that twelve gentlemen could be found to concur in
it. The evidence was that Colonel Lincoln Stanhope had
been wishing for some years to dispose of Putney
House, and, as usual, it was put down in the books
of many house agents, and among others in those
of the plaintiff. By the death of the Colonel in
1840, the house became the property of the noble de-
fendant as heir-at-law. He also W 33 anxious to dispose
of the property ; and the plaintiff wrote to him for
particulars, which were furnished to him and many
others by Colonel Leicester Stanhope, all upon
their own applications. In May the Colonel entered
into negotiations with Mr. Ogle, as Counsel for the College
of Civil Engineers, and eventually, in July, 1840, it was
sold to that body for 9,000/. It appeared that the
plaintiff had given a card to view the house to a Mr,
Clark, the Secretary to the College, and probably
one or two other parties; that was all he had ever done,
yet he sent in kis claim for 10s. fur registering the pro-
perty, although that was at his own request, and 1411. ss.
for commission upon the 9,0001 , for which the property was
sold by the brother of the defendant. If the plaintiff could
recover this demand, then the 20 others who upon their
own request had been furnished with particulars, were
equally entitled, but he was certain such an unfounded
claim could never sue -ced. _

Mr. Baron RoLFE—I was not only dissatisfied with the
verdict, but had great doubts whether I ought nut to have
nonsuited.—Rule granted.

IN RE THE LAND-TAR OF THE PARISH OF UTLEY. IN THE
DISTRICT OF SAFFRON WALDEN.

Mr. WORDSWORTH showed cause against a rule obtained
in November last, calling upon the Land-tax Commis-
sioners to show cause why they should not make a new
assessment of the land-tax upon all property in the above
parish in an equal manner. The appl►cation was
made on the part of Mr. Lake, a gentleman residing
in London, but holding property in the above parish. Lie
complained of the inequality of the rate last made, 293
acres belonging to the Rev. Mr. Raymond and other pro.
perties, were wholly omitted from the assessment, in con.
sequence of which inequality he and other occupiers in
the parish were compelled to pay more than their just pro-
portion.
The COURT said it was perfectly clear from the affidavits
on both sides that the Commissioners bad not come to any
decision on either the first or second occasions, they de-
sired information and gave time for its collection, at the
last hearing the appellant did not appear, and the appeal
was dismissed. Under such circumstances the Court had
no power to interfere.—Rule discharged.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Je.v. 15.
HILL V. INNEI. _ _

In this case Mr. MATTIIEWi appeared for the plaintiff,
a solicitor ; and Mr. Fouzascue, appeared for the defend-
ant, who is brother-in.law of Mr. Stockdale. _

The action was brought to recover 7/. 3s. 6d., for money
lent to the defendant, to enable him to release Stockdale
out of the custody of the Sheriffs of London.
William Chapman, a Sheriff's Officer's assistant, esta-
blished the plaintiff's case.
Mr. FORTESC UK contended that the only undertaking
Mr. Inaes gave Mr. Hill to re-pay the money was of
a collateral nature, inasmuch as he promised to pay if
Stockdale did not. Stockdale, however, it had not b,en
proved, had ever been applied to, and that even
if the undertaking was of a positive character, the
Statute of Frauds required that it should be made in writ-
ing. Ile (Mr. Forteieue) would be able to show that there
was a collateral undertaking in writing given, which lie
submitted would at once put the plaintiff out of Court.
The Learned Counsel then commenced reading a docu-
ment, but was stopped by
The SECONDARY inquiring how the paper could get
into the defendant's pose.,sion, if it was given to the
plaintiff? Unless the defendant could pr3ve that it had
been in the plaintiff's possession, he could not be affected
by it.
Mr. FORTESCUR, not being prepared with proof of such
a description, he proceeded to argue that the Jury trust
be fully satisfied that the money passed from Mr. Hill into
the defendant's own hands, and that it was a bona file loan,
to enable the plaintiff to recover.
The Learned SECONDARY summed up, and the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 7/. 3s. (id.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN 12.
GOING TO LAW.—William Hall, a newsvendrr,
bookseller, &c., was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe, on the
part of Mr. John Cumberland, the well-known pub-
lisher of plays, and supported by Mr. Cooke.
This case shows the result of going to law, and the
enormous expense incurred by a creditor in attempting
to recover a sum of 131. It appeared that Mr. Cum-
berland was the holder of a 12/. bill of exchange
drawn by Mr. Berger, the publisher, of Ilolywell.street
on and accepted by the insolvent, who owed him the
money . The bill was in the cou!se of business paid
away to the present holder, and an action was brought
against the insolvent to recover the amount, when, by
hitiss,a,atitoarn accommodation
l'
ee pleaded, and one of the pleas was, that
mmodation bill. The action being un•
der 201. could be tried before the Sheriff, but that pro-
, pnOil was resisted, and, on appoont of the pleas, it
was tried
in the svipoi'ior i.tourt. 4t wan tried hefore
Mr. Baron Gurney, and he turned it a '4 disgracerul
defence." A verdict was obtained for 121., the amount
claimed, and it was proved that in getting the barren
verdict the taxed costs of Mr. Cumberland amounted,
1,4 m-4 lese a stiff} than f' thirty-seven pounds," the
ouly satisfaction dprived ve4, thq;
been taken in eaecntion, The cogs, if the delvridln,
hid not plzadad, would have been under t3i., and now
they were 37/.;
Mr, Berger stated that the bill was pot qu aeoommo.
dation one, The insolvent owed him the money,
and it
whs w 'icfleVV4l, - -

The insolvent confessed that there was no pretence
for saying it was an accommodation bill. He left the
business to his attorney who had pleaded,
A long inquiry was made respecting the insolvent's
business, which was carried on by his wife. He bad
been out on bail.

Mr. WOODROFFE MAC Some strong observations
on the conduct of the attorney who had pleaded to the
actlan, The Court could not touch him, and could
enly romand the insolvent.
The Chief CoustisstoNEß, in giving the opinion of
the Court, said that the defence was tot vexatious.
and when the case was petlnot, the insolvent would be
remanded at the suit of Mr. Cumberland.

The case was adjourned, and the insolvent ordered
to be taken to prison. _ _ _

It was subsequently proved that his wife .was seri-
onsly ill, and said to he dying,
The COURT, under the circumstance, humanely ol-
lowed him to remain out on bail, and adjourned the
case to the 15th February.
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.