The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDO

not seem clear that the dignity of the Bench
would be compromised by the Judges either
occupying their seats or retiring to their
,chambers for, aifew
_minutes;-: -until - the pub-
lic business could proceed in order. There
is surely nothing undignified in the patient
discharge of a public duty,- even .at the cost of
some personal inconvenience. It is true, no
doubt, that the public good and the dignity of
the Bench are both concerned in an inflexible
adherence to rules clearly and distinctly laid
down. But it is unfortunate in the particular
instance—unfortunate generally for the public
—that no such rule exists. Nothing is more
common than tbr the Judges to wait for Counsel
in a particular case; indeed, it is every day's ex-
perience; and no reason exists why the indulg-
ence should be withheld on the last, more than
upon any other day of the Term. Most would
be disposed to think that upon the day on which
most business is transacted in the different Courts
the indulgence would be especially proper. The
question immediately before us, however, is not
whether such an indulgence is proper on any par-
ticular day, or at all ? but whether, as it does
exist, it ought to be withdrawn suddenly without
notice, and therefore, in appearance, from the
caprice of ill temper? ' For ourselves, we think
that the practice of waiting for Counsel is injuri-
ous to the public, and espc4.ially injurious to the
junior bar, and would wish to see it altogether
discontinued.

The action-was brought in Nov. 1838, and then it was
said that the Statute of Limitatations had begun to run
from the time the defendant had succeeded to the title,
and that the plaintiff, could not recover. Now he sub-
mitted that the agreemententered into between the par-
ties was a special one promising to pay the bills " when-
ever he was of ability to do so." The plaintiff proved
that he had applied to the defendant, and that he was of
ability to pay, and under these circumstances he could
not see how the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Mr. MESMER followed on the same side.

Mr. ERLE, on behalf of the defendant, submitted that
even if the agreement was a special one, the cause of
action arose at the time of ability, arid the Statute of
Limitations then began to run, and six years having
elapsed before the bringing of the , action, it could not
now be maintained. He submitted further, that the
agreement was one upon which the plaintiff might have
proceeded at any time, without Oting for Lord
Thanet to be of ability. The moment' the defendant
became of ability, then it was a regular agreement to
pay upon demand, but it did not entail upon him the
condition of apprising the plaintiff of 'the period when
he became of ability. The danger of the ground taken
by his Learned Friends in contending that the plaintiff
had a right of notice it was unnecessary for him to point
out. It was important, however, that such a notice
should have been stipulated for, if it was meant to rely
upon it. He thought it was extremely inconvenient to give
the ether party the power of lying by for nearly half a
century, allowing interest to be heaped upon interest
upon a very large sum, and then, when the evidence as
to handwriting and other matters was extremely doubt-
ful, to come forward with the present claim. The
Learned Counsel, after a lengthened argument, con-
cluded by submitting that the verdict could not be main-
tained, and the rule for a nonsuit made absolute.

The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 26.
(Sittings after Term, before a Common Jury.)
HARLEY AND WIFE V. FRLTCHLEY.

This was an action brought by the wife of a Mr. Har-
ley against the defendant to recover damages for false
imprisonment.
_

It appeared that late on the evening of the 16th April
last the plaintiff and her husband had gone into the Vic-
tory public-house in Oxford-street, kept by a Mr. Wil-
iiatns, for the purpose of getting something to drink, for.
which she paid. That afterwards another person came in,
and had something'to drink, in payment for which some
coin was given to the barman, who placed the change
by mistake near to Mrs. Harley. This change (four-
pence halfpenny) suddenly disappeared ; and the barman
accused the plaintiff with taking it. She denied it, a
row ensued, a policeman was sent for, and the barman
went to the Rose and Crown, a public-house also be-
longing to Mr. Williams, in the neighbour-
hood, from whence he returned to the Victory,
and was shortly afterwards followed by the defendant,
who, according to the testimony of one of the witnesses,
gave the plaintiff in charge, while another of the plain-
tiff's witnesses thought that she had previously been given
in charge by the barman. She was taken to the station-
house, locked up for the night, and discharged the next
morning by the Magistrate. It was agreed on all hands,
however, that the defendant did not accompany. her to
the station-house, and the plaintiff's counsel did not
produce the charge-sheet. When searched at the
station-house, a large sum of money was found on her.
For the defence it was contended that it was notFritchley,
but Jenner, the barman, who had given the plaintiff into
custody. Jenner himself stated that such was the fact,
and the charge sheet was produced, which was signed by
Jenner, who swore that he had seen the plaintiff take
the 4d.
Mr. Justice PATTESON having summed up the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101.

Mr. Platt and Mr. Thomas conducted the case for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Barstow, and Mr.
Chambers for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,Nov. 26.

Lord ABINGER, with a Common Jury, took several
cases in the Court of Exchequer, but as they were unde-
fended, no point of interest was presented.
The other Barons sat in the Exchequer Chamber, and
proceeded with the cases in the special paper. The
arguments were purely technical.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 26.

PERRYMAN V. WENSLEY.

One witness'(in direct contradiction of all the plain-
tiff's evidence) said that she saw Perryman " fall off the
box because he was drunk." She did not see any colli-
sion at all. The other witnesses for the defendant, some
of them passengers, and others passers by, stated that
he drove steadily, and kept his own side of the road ;
the accident, in their view, being altogether attributable
to the plaintiff's own conduct.
A somewhat expensive and handsome model of the
Brompton-road, with the omnibuses running on it, was
produced in Court, and the carriages were moved about
upon it to show the various positions in which the colli-
sion was represented by the several witnesses to have
taken place.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 151.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Nov. 26.
THACKTHWAITE V. WESTERDALE.

This was an undefended action to recover the sum of
141. 75., for damage done to a gig, the property of the
plaintiff.
It appeared that the plaintiff was driving in his gig
on the 6th of August last, in Holborn, when the de-
fendant came up in hi 3 cart and drove against the plain-
tiff's gig, whereby the shaft was broken, and the gig
otherwise damaged.

The Jury returned a verdict of 111. 45., deducting, on
the direction of the Learned Secondary, the sum of 3/.35.,
which was charged for the hire of a gig during the re-
pairs. This was
.not stated in the declaration, conse-
quently the plaintiff could not recover.

NOBLE V. DODSON.

This was an action to recover the sum of 21. 6s. Bd. for
work done and performed, and goods sold and delivered.
The defendant pleaded first, that he was not indebted;
and secondly, that the debt was under 21., and the action
should therefore have been brought in the Court of Re-
quests. The plaintiff had supplied the defendant with a
number of castings of ornamental, rails by contract. The
defendant conducted his case in person, and called wit-
nesses to prove that the rails were of very inferior mate-
rials. The Jury, however, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the full amount.
The case lasted till half-past three o'clock.
CRIM. CON.-MIEVELLE V. POLAI.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages for
an alleged adulterous intercourse with the plaintiff's wife.
The damages were laid at 10,0001. The defendant was
a person in a high sphere of life, being Secretary to the
Prussian Embassy to this Court, and the defendant a
native of Switzerland, who resided in Wimpole-street,
Cavendish-square, and was well known on 'Change.
Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., with Mr. Austin and Mr.
Martin, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lee for the
defendant.

bliss Amelia Mievelle said she was sister to the plain-
tiff's wife. Remembered their marriage in 1830, when
the plaintiff was 22 years of age, and his wife two years
younger ; and from that time up to January 1841 they lived
together upon the most affectionate terms, and Mrs. Mei-
velle was treated with the greatest respect and attention
by her husband. They were first cousins, and had been
acquainted from childhood, and appeared much attached
to each other. After their marriage they lived in Bruns-
wick-square, and subsequently removed to Wimpole-
street, where they used frequently to have concerts, and the
defendant being a great admirer and proficient in music,
often attended them. Mrs. Mievelle and witness were
pupils of M. Moschelles, the eminent pianist, who often
gave balls and concerts to his pupils, to which Mrs. M.
and witness generally went, accompanied by the plaintiff,
and occasionally met M. Polai there. In January, 1841,
a letter was addressed to Mrs. Mievelle from the defend-
ant, couched in such language as at once to excite suspicions
of his wife's fidelity, and, in consequence, an estrange-
ment took place for several days,which witness succeeded
in doing away, by representing that at last his wife's
condijt could only be pronounced indiscreet. After
this M. Polai ceased visiting at their house, but they oc-
casionally met liim at M. Moschelles' concerts. In the
following July, the plaintiff, his wife, and witness pro-
ceeded to Switzerland on a visit to their relatives, and had
reached Frankfort, when M. Meivelle received an inti-
mation that a firm in Paris, which was deeply indebted
to him had failed, and he was compelled to repair thither
immediately. Witness and his sister then returned to
England, and took up their residence again in Wirnpole-
street, and during the absence of the plaintiff in Paris
M. Meivelle used frequently to be out late at
night. From the facts stated by the servants concerning
her, the plaintiff's brother deemed it necessary to re-
move her to his house, and shortly afterwards sent her
to the country, from whence she ran away to the Con-
tinent with M..Polai. Mrs. Mievelle had two children
by her marriage, one nine years of age, and the other
eighteen months, which are at present at school in
Brighton. She was entitled by a settlement from her
father who is an eminent merchant in Broad-street,
City, to an annuity of 2101., and a reversionary interest
in 6,000/.

Virgine Bailie, a French woman, who was lady's maid
to Mrs. Mievelle, deposed to certain facts tending to
establish the charge upon which the action was founded.
. John Forrester, the -Mausion-house officer, said, by
the direction of the plaintiff's solicitor, he went on
board the Hamburgh steamer, and soon afterwards the
rdiegtEfhendant also came on board accompanied by Mrs.
Mieville. They sailed for the Continent, and he (For-
rester) traced them along the Rhine until they reached
Berlin, when the defendant became aware that he was
tracked and spoke to him about it, u.ing the words—
" You need not take so much trouble, thk, case could
have been established before."
Mr. LEE o=4- behalf of the defendant, urged that be
was not so ',,,t.111 to blame as the lady herself, who was
thirty4,--,eni of age, and that he had not violated the
7liospitality. lie acknowledged his crime, and
triistetalle allowance would be made by the Jury, on
the groat.' v tibia persons reared on the Continent were
nut imbq: Thith those strict principles of morality which
marltodr.l nesh society.
The L.'"l VI
_4;4E11-SECONDARY in summing up said
it was th''' "8
*The Jurymen to award such damages as
Wouldti. 1,0 8$ 'late to the rank of the parties, and the
injury il
Thit, Bch : *red, and after about twenty minutes,
dreatmTuharngisesw:hatt for the plaintiff—Damages, 5001.
) 1
", ",',..Y *RIFFS' COURT.
--K..),' L'' ' OBBARD V. TAYLOR.
a writ of inquiry to ascertain the amount of
tptained by the plaintiff in an action for false
imprisonnt, the defendant having suffered judgment to
go by dfault.
Mr. ETEIISDORFF, for the plaintiff, stated that Mr.
Obbaj4' was an attorney's clerk, and lived in Camden-
townitnd that defendant was a respectable grocer, in
Hkotreet, in the same neighbourhood ; that in the
be:aning of May, 1841, a favourite dog of the plaintiff's
wr lost ;. that plaintiff, hearing it was at defendant's'
, ,