The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-06 00:00:00

BRAMENVELL V. RIDGWAY.

This was an action of trover tried at the last York
Assizes, to recover the value of a snuff-box. A verdict
had been given for the plaintiff, damages 8/. An applica-
tion was made for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground
of surprise, and also on the ground of discovery of addi-
ional evidence since the trial.
Lord DENMAN asked if the affidavits imputed fraud to
the plaintiff? On being answered in the negative, his
Lordship said that the Court could not grant a rule, then.
This was indeed a case de minimis. In a case of Si the
Court could not grant a rule on such grounds, and he
thought the parties had better sit down contented with the
decision, rather than incur costs by further litigation.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 3.
IVATT V. MANN.
This was an action for compensation, under the Act
for enclosing a common in the parish of Ranton, in
Cambridgeshire. The verdict was for the defendant.
Mr. KELLY now obtained a rule nisi to set aside the
verdict, and refer an issue under the Enclosure Act to
the Master, on the ground that the verdict was against
law.

WOOD V. MORWOOD.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a new trial in
this case, on the ground that the verdict for the plaintiff
was obtained by surprise—a document having been ad-
mitted in evidence, which the defendant might have con-
troverted if he had had notice of its prodUction. The
action was brought to recover the value of certain mine-
rals (coal) raised by the defendant, from under the al-
leged freehold of the defendant, situated in the county
of Derby. The defendant had purchased the mines
upon that portion of the Zouch property for which
Sir John Zouch, in the reign of Elizabeth,
suffered a recovery. The plaintiff, however,
raised a claim, in 1838, to se much of the coal
as lay under land in his possession, and brought his
action for 20,0001., the value of the quantity which had
been removed. Upon the trial, a conveyance from Sir
John Zouch, of a date anterior to the recovery was
produced, whereupon the defendant suffered a verdict,
reserving the right of appeal on the ground of the sur-
prise, if objections to the conveyance should appear.
It had since been found that at the time of the con-
veyance, Sir John Zouch was only tenant for life, and
had no power to convey the fee.—Rule granted.

HALLINVELL V. BURRELL.
This action was brought to recover from the defen-
dant, James Burrell, Oxford, a banker, the sum of
19,0001., which he was alleged to have agreed to pay to
the plaintiffs as creditors of the firm of Cox and Davis,
the previous holders of coal-works in the Forest of
Dean, which, upon the undertaking in question, was
taken by the -defendant's partner, Robert Burrell, on
their joint account. The defence was, that the defen-
dant was no party to the agreement.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW moved for a new trial, on
the ground that the verdict (for the plaintiff), was
a-linst, evidence.
Court deferred judgment, for the purpose of
.• the notes of Mr. Baron Parke, who tried

tut, cast.

I'ERNOa tEn V. PATERNOSTER, FINCH, AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff, in person, applied, on his own affidavit,
for an attachment against the defendants for contempt,
they not having complied with the rule, to which they
had consented, ordering them to pay the plaintiff an
annuity of 1501. per annum. The circumstances under
which the rule was made were, that the plaintiff
brought actions against the defendants severally, of
whom the father of the plaintiff was one, for illegally,
and without sufficient grounds, confining him in a pri-
vate madhouse. The actions were settled upon their
consent to the rule, of which the present affidavit
averred them to be in contempt.
The Court, upon perusal of the affidavit, intimated
to the plaintiff that he should cause his:attorney to
make application, in writing, for the arrears of the
annuity, and upon affidavit of such application, and
refusal or delay on the part of the defendants, to apply
immediately to the Court.
The plaintiff thanked their Lordships, and withdrew.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JVor. 6.
John Macdonald, described as late of Norfolk-street,
Strand, sworn Russia broker, was opposed by Mr.
Nichols on the part of the proprietors of the Morning
Chronicle. He was supported by Mr. Cooke and Mr.
Wcodreffe-
The insolvent, it appeared, had borrowed money of
Martin Smith Metcalfe, the late publisher of the Morn-
ing Chronicle, and had given him his check on the
London and Westminster Bank. The insolvent was
sued by Mr. Easthope, M.P., and the other proprie-
tors of the newspaper, to which action he plea:led, but
a verdict by consent vas taken for 9.80/. The costs
amounted to about 641. The insolvent stated that he
did not know the money advanced by Metcalfe was his
employers'.
Mr. Nichols said his case was that a debt had been
fraudulently contracted, and he should call Metcalfe.
Martin Smith Metcalfe was examined at setae length.
He said he had made advances, and an account was
open at. the London and Westminster Bank. His duty
was to settle every Wednesday, and he had checks
signed by the insolvent, for which he (Metcalfe) after-
wards found money. The system went on for about a
year when it was discovered. He had been tried at the
Central Criminal Court and convicted. He supposed
the insolvent knew the source from whence the money
came. The insolvent was Secretary of the Highland
Society. He only supposed the insolvent knew.
Mr. Nichols said he could not establish his point. A
cave of fraud was to be made out by clear evidence, and
not by inference which was all that had appeared in
this case.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER remarked that he was
quite sure, if he was sitting in another Court, that he
should be bound on this evidence to tell the Jury to ac-
quit the man. He hoped he knew nothing about it.
The insolvent solemnly declared he did not know that
the money belonged to the proprietors.
The Court ordered him to be discharged.
IN THE MATTER OF HENRY CHAPMAN.
The insolvent, who was a schoolmaster at Keaton,
near Bromley in Kent, has been two or three times be-
fore the Court, and his case was adjourned for the at-
tendance -; the Hon. Mr. Tollemache, who had, since
the ortg,,, hearing, succeeded to the title of Lord
Huntingtower. The case was reported.
John Williams, clerk to Mr. Dyte, the attorney for
the insolvent, was called by Mr. Cooke. He said the
insolvent was out on bail, and he had exerted himself to
subpoena Lord Huntingtower. He had taken out as
I many as five subpoenas to accomplish the purpose ; and
on the Ist October he obtained two, in order to serve
Lord Huntingtower with one. He (the witness) kept
\one subpoena in his possession, and the other he gave
to a man he employed to serve it for some time, and to
whom he gave two shillings a day to watch for the ap-
pearance of his Lordihip. He (the witness) went down
to Orpington Cottage, nearly Bromley, the residence
of Lord Huntingtower, on Saturday, to subpna his
Lordship, and got there as early as five o'clock in the
morning.
men, with bludgeons and dogs. He asked
arraof When be got to the Cottage,
six
he found an
what the array was about, and they said," We know what
e
you are about, and if youvalu your life, don't come here,"
and one of the men told him,
theu using very
bettervery badrd
him.language, e
that the sooner he went back
did not like the appearance of the
a hedge where he waited in the hope oti, and
seeingld retired to
he
was
but
properly
w a hiss
L pro-
tected, rd -
ship, until six o'clock in the evening,
disap-
pointed. When he went again,
and waited for his Lordship. A gentleman
came from the place to go shooting,
and he (witness)
endeavoured to go in at the gate, he was however forced
back, and threatened if hm n e approached. His Lordship
called out not to let hi i, I told him I wanted to