The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-19 00:00:00

COOPER V. BUCK AND OTHERS.

Mr. HUMFREY moved for a rule to set aside the verdict in
this cause, which was tried before Lord Abinger at the late
Warwick Assizes, and to enter a verdict for the amount
claimed by the plaintiff. The action was brought by the
plaintiff, who had been employed as reporter, and subsequently
as reporter and editor, of the Birmingham Advertiser,
against the defendants, who are proprietors of that psper. It
appeared that the plaintiff had been originally engaged as repor-
ter, at a salary of 150/. per annum, and subsequently performed
the duties of editor without any fresh contract, but for which he
claimed additional salary to the amount of 400/. per annum.
The defendants paid into Court the money due upon the origi-
nal contract, and the Jury, by the direction of the Learned Judge,
found that there was no other contract, and that consequently
the plaintiff was not legally entitled to recover more, though
they said they thought he ought to be paid for his
additional services. The Learned Gentleman contended that
the Jury were misdirected, and that the defendants had ad-
mitted their liability for the sum claimed, by the payment of
money into Court. On this point the Learned Gentleman
cited several cases.

Lord DENMAN said the Court would consult the other Judges.

BAIL COURT, APRIL 17.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
His LORDSHIP took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock,
and heard motions, none of which presented any features of
interest, for an hour. The Court then sat at Nisi Prius, and
disposed of several undefended causes.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 17.
( Sittings in Banco. )
DAVISON V. STANLEY.

This action, which was tried at. Liverpool before Mr. Baron
Rolfe. was brought by the Commercial Bank to recover from
Sir Thomas Stanley the amcunt of several bills of exchange
discounted by them upon the acceptances of the defendant's
agent, Mr. Blundell, in his (Sir Thomas Stanley's) name.
The Learned Judge, in summing up, told the Jury that there
was no proof of Blundell's having the defendant's authority to
accept the hills in question in his name, and the Jury accord-
ingly found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant STEPHEN this day moved for a new trial on
the ground of misdirection.
The COURT, after having heard the Sergeant at very great
length, were of opinion that the Judge had directed rightly, and
that the plaintiff had no case.—Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 17.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Before Barons ALDERSON, GURNEY, and ROLFE, Mr. Baron
PARKE being absent on account of an accident which befel
him on his way to Court.
FOSTER V. POYNDER.

Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW stated that this was an action for
libel, which was alleged to have been published in a cettain
weekly newspaper called the Paul Pry, which, if it ever had
existence at all, existed so tar back as September, 1838. The
action was not against any person connected with the paper;
but it was alleged that the defendant, while in Windsor, took
a piece of printed paper out of his pocket and handed it to a
person, who read it ; that person handed it to another, who
also read it, and then the defendant took it away in his pocket.
Notice to produce the paper was served ui,on the defendant, and
it was very particularly described ; it was not forthcoming, and
was said to be either 'lost or destroyed, and the plaintiff pro •
eeeded to prove his case. At the close of his evidence
it had not been shown that the libel in question
had ever been in any newspaper called the Paul
Pry, and on that ground he applied for a nonsuit ;
hut his Lordship would not stop the case, but reserved
leave for him to move the Court, and amended the declarati,n.
He contended that the plaintiff having himself tied up his own
hands, he was bound to prove his allegations. Probably it
would not have been necessary to have troubled the Court had
it not been for something which took place after the verdict,
which was one farthing damages. In the cause paper, at
Reading, stood a cause in which the same parties exhibited,
bait their characters were reversed—it was Poynder v. Foster,
in which libel the defendant sought damages for a grievous as-
sault. When the plaintiff applied for a certificate under Lord
Denman's Act, his Lordship ( Mr. Baron Gurney) suspended
hisjudgment upon that point for a few minutes, in order tc see
whether any arrangement couldbe made. An arrangement
was made, and then his Lordship granted a certificate.
Mr. Baron AtnEasoN—We have nothing to do with that at
present—that point will arise on taxation. This was a very
proper case for an amendment. You will therefore take no
Rule.—Rule refused.

BELL V. KNIGHT.

This action was tried at Leicester iiefore Mr. Justice Patte-
son, when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. HILL now moved to set that verdict aside. He said it
was a case often met with in the books, but very seldom in
practice. It was an action against an innkeeper for turninz
his guest out of doors. 'I he plaintiff came to the defendant's
inn at a late hour, and asked to be shown to a bed-room. He
was so, but he said the beds were damp, and refused to sleep
in them. He requested to be furnished with a candle, and he
would sleep up stairs. This was refused, and the landlord then
offered to sit up with him down stairs, but that being refused
he became angry, and turned plaintiff out of doors, so that
he had to walk six miles to Leicester, very late at night.
He (Mr. Hill) might move as against evidence, but
he would prefer to do so upon the defectiveness of the plea.
It was very full, and stated that the plaintiff came to the Inn
when defendant was about to go to bed, and expressed a de-
sire to sleep in the inn ; that defendant was willing to allow
him, and had a bed warmed for him, but that he refused to
sleep in the bed provided for him, but requested permission to
sit up in an upstairs room, having a candle burning during
the night. He (defendant), in fear lest the inn should be
burned, refused to allow him, but gave plaintiff permission t ,
sit tip down-stairs, and offered to give him the benefit of
his own company during the night. The plaintiff, however,
perhaps mtt a bad taste, refused this magnanimous offer,
which so enraged the defendant, that out of doors did he
bundle the plaintiff, who thought he had a right to enjoy his
whomNe ertehionug ft-
sour own company during the silent watches of the night. He con-
tended the plea was bad. However, the Jury, who were all
ea bed , t
h were
farmers,stooubrea
of
ft4te landlord,
asnt
idiip9r4osblaab; n
l probably notlawyer,
a g,in
a and
drasidt
found
hisof
fo
a dm
client,
thet p
defendant. Under
such circumstances hp was at a loss to know whether to move
for judgment, non obstante Teredieto a venire de novo, or a
new trial as against evidence.
The COURT said he had better take the rule nisi in the
alternative.--Rule granted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 17.
(Pore Mr. Commissioner Bow Es.)
the
IN THE MATtgli OF THILLIP STEPHEN HARRISON.
The insolvent was an irowaroogpr, and carried on busincfs
at the well known sign of the " Little bust Pp," in Holborn.
A flat of bankruptcy had been issued against him sotne timil
back, and most of his creditors signed the certificate. He
taoseiriiimbedinhliquginetostmens:yantdo ttoheieifvrailetizrer onfs:go;rne
soal petorsons indebted
stance of his trying to force his establishment into notoriety,
2,0001. In September Lot.llgtenwehii:etriemdiet
9hres
,fisrsthfeelhiainaimo
many
by winch he lust a great deal in advertisi9 in the daily ;La
weekly pap(as vd the periodicals. His I.7.!'ilities were about
ticulties, his stock in trade
ell:a:is::
job':
beside§ which, he was possessed of freehold property in Kentish
tthioensoolfichitisorasssteotsthaemfioantx, andhe Ittith
Town. Tike insolvent stated he had been three months In pri
son, and that in coming to this Court he acted by the advice of
was
a,:v ils hh
fl'ors9thel.
execution creditors, who would take precedence of the ;:est.
He was supported by Mr. Cooke, and opposed on the i)art
of a creditor named Abraham Bateman, by Mr. Nicholls, 'Who
stated that the insolvent was indebted to his client in the sum
of 10!.. on which, by vexatious litigation, he accumulated the
sum of 121. costs. The Learned Counsel was proceeding in
his opposition, when a Creditor stood forward and said, that
so well satisfied were the body of creditors with the insolvent,
that sooner than have any opposition for so trifling a sum as
the present, they would pay Mr. Bateman the amount of his
demand.—. The opposition Olen dropped.