The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-29 00:00:00

At the trial, which took place at the last Sittings for Middle-
sex, it appeared that this bill was given with two others for the
purchase of a mortgage art certain premises in Staffordshire, on
part er-which .were copperas works, which the defendant iced
-been 141scial-to make by false representations, and which ul-
timately preyed ,of no value. Evidence was also laid
before the Jirritto induce them to believe that the plaintiff had
taken the hill with a full knowledge of the whole transaction ;
but it appeared that Mr. Bamford had never distinctly repu-
diated the contract, but had obtained possession of part of the
premises, by purchasing the interest of kprior mortgagee, and
still held them. Under these circumstances, the Lord Chief.
Justice thought that he could not say,'in a Court of Law, that
the consideration had wholly failed, but that relief must be
sought in equity; and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.
The SOLICITOTC-GENERAL now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground that the defendant had not taken posses-
sion on any legal title derived from his bargain, but as the
assignee of a third person whose interest he had bought, and
'that therefore he had received no benefit under the fraudulent
contract, from which the bill had its origin. The Court grant-
ed a rule to show cause.

THE KING V. WILLIAM MEAD.
The SOLICITOR-GENEUAI, mentioned to the Court that
his affidavits in this cue were informal.' as they were not en-
tithed in the cause. lie wished that they might continue on
the file, but that he might be at liberty to send duplicates into
the country, to be sworn under proper titles.
Mr. D. F. JONES said he had no objection to this arrange-
ment, but he thought it right to mention that notice of bail had
been given so late yesterday, that no oppv:tunity had been
afforded of investigating the responsibility of the proposed
sureties.
The SOLICITOIL-GENERAL consented that the justification
of bail should be postponed till to-morrow.

LITSIAN V. WILSON, REYNOLDS V. WILSON, PRICE
V. WILSON.
Mr. SCARLETT moved at once,in these three cases for rules
to show cause why the verdictirshould not be set aside, and new•
trials f:ranted. They were antionsfor the malicious nrosecution
of an Indictment by the •defendant" against the plaintiffs and
others . charging them with conspiracy to effect the fraudulent
removal of goods distrained by him as landlord on premises oc-
cupied by Litman. They were tried as,undefended causes, and
the Jury gave 4001. in the first ; 1501. in the second, and 501.
in the third, by way of damages. Ile (Mr. Scarlett) had been
instructed to apply to the Court to postpone these trials on ac-
count of the absence of Wm. Smith, a material; and indeed es-
sential, witness for the defendant, whose residence he had been
unable to discover. Ile thought it right to defer. the applica-
tion until the causes came on for trial, when he made it in full
confidence of success. Mr. Gurney, however, gave a very short
answer to the application by producing the witness in Court;
and the trial was ordered to, proceed. At this time, no briefs
had been prepared ; the Couusel, therefore, did not appear, and
no defence was made, because the attorney for the defendant
relied on the postponement of the trial. Smith, the witness, was
the broker authorized by Mr. Wilson to distrain, and therefore
he could not advance the first step in proving probable cause
for the prosecution without his evidence ; -bat when he came to
inquire for him, he found that he had left the street where he
had lived, and no clue remained by which it was possible to
trace him A. clerk of Mr. Wilson's attorney had received in-
structing to procure the causes to be set doWn as:special jury
causes, but he lost his. papers ; and thus they were unexpect-
edly hurried on to trial. The •witness Smith, whom the plain-
tiff knew where to find, and whom they subpoenaed but did not
calls had himself compromised an indictment which he pre-
ferred against them from motives of cAmpassion ; and front his
testimony it would appear, that Mr. Wilson had subjected him-
self to these actions, only by forbearing to urge his prosecution
from a, similar feeling..
The-Cou ire granted rules to show cause in all the cases, on
condition that the defendant should it the costs of 'the former
trial ; undertake' to make no formal objection to the pleadings;
and bring 4001. into Court by Saturday. These eonditions
were accepted, and the rules taken on these terms.

InACPIIERSOI.I LOvlt.
311 r. SCAR.LETT Moved for a rule to show cause why the ver.
diet ht this can should not be set aside, and a new trial had'. It
was an action for a broach of promise of marriage, brought by
a widow against the Captain of a West Intliaship, in which, at
the trial a few days ago in London, the plaintiff recovered 500/.
damages. There waft one general .observation which lie (Mr.
Scuba) would venture to make on cases of this kind, that a
modest and meritorious plaintiff had far less chance of obtain-
ing considerable damages, than one•of an opposite character ;
because it was scarcely ever, possible to impeach the character
of the most abandoned woman except by witnesses, whose
examination must furnish topics for a strong and influential
reply. Ills own experience had taught him that it was always
unwise to call such witnesses, unless he could, gather from the
cross-examination of the plaintitra witnesses some matter on
which he might ground his case ; but sometimes, as in this in..
stance a Counsel had no discretion to exercise. The plaintiff,
Mrs.Macpherson, hut already been twice married; she had
children by both husbands, and one of her daughters was al-
ready Nettled in tile world; 'and this 'Was, the lady who sought
to recover on a promise of marriage written by herself, and
only signed by her admirer. The words of this. promise were,
" I promise to marry You when I return from Denkerara, Please
God, or to pay you a thousind pounds." •
Mr.. Justice BEST.—Was the promise made in a warm cli
mate ?—(A laugh.) . .
The LORD JtrsTic E.—lt was net very far from the
Pump, at Aldgate.--(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. ScanI.ETT proceetted.—No evidence Was given at the
trial, of the defendant's 'circumstances in life; and surely far
the loss of a third husband, and he a wandering captain, who.
would frequently be absent from his wife, 5001. eras 311 excei...
sive compensation. At the trial he felt the clanger of the
de-
fence which he was instructed to Make; and therefore he cross.
mexottynei isen;telrllit ly than rit. Satialit iflovao h
rth, the daughter of the plaintiff; with
is custom to employ, She stood the
tire, however, remarkably well, and positively denied that she
ever saw the captain in bed with her mother, or airried break.
fait to them when in that situation. Now he had the affidavit
of a witness to distinctly contradict her on those points; who
swore that she had been employed in the Manner alluded to,
and that dining the two years in which she resided with her
mother, site performed menial taco for the captain ; that she
even brushed his shoes; and that she had fetched him .to the
bowie at her mother's desire. The story of the plaintiff was
most extraordinary--altat the defendant had first written the
pmmise, and then given it to her to copy ; and yet she neither
.produced the original, nor accounted for its absence. The de-
fendant's case was, that she lied 'been his mistress ; that she
pvwisleie her a paperdtoreniei to fin t
ninabosse eh belonged to him ; that he
pu,wwitlitiedemise of the premises, and.
•that showtote this pronuse in its room.
„
The Lord CHIEF'-JUSTICE—There was nothing In ine .
de.nce that glanced at all this ? •
Mr. SCARLTITT admitted that there was not,. but there was
enough to show the extreme improbability at' the plaintiff's
ease, it was singular that both the witnesses, who swore to a
verbal promise, introduced the words ." please Clod," which
were so singularly placed in the written promise.
Mr.Justiee Thai.---Probably the Captain took it from the
bill of lading.,—(A laugh.)
Mr. Scahltivr proceeded to argue that several topics had
heel) pressed beyond their proper. weight in the powerful re-
ply of Mri-Adolphtia.•sll4',-concludeddtiy expressing , his hope,
that the Court would feel with him, that even if any promise
were proved„the aamage*,were exceedingly disproportioned to
the injury.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause why a now trial
should not be granted on the ground ofexceisive damages, on
the. defendant bringing 150/. into Cohrt within a week.
Mr.-Ountir.v, in allusion to the causes in which Mr. 'Wil-
son is defendant, expresses hia wish that the rides should come
on as Motions. .
• The Loan Curer Jusalcx assented, but expressed his
,hope that some arrangement would he effected between the
parties. Ile wished also to extend this reconirnendetionto the
ease of MacpberKon and l,ovie. Ile , should feel extreme: re.
luctance to desturb the vCrtlict of h Jury on the ground so pe-
culiarly within their province as the amount of damages' espe-
cially it that verdict was, given by either of the Juries who sat
in London and. Westminster during the last arduous sittings,
who had manifested nn intelligence, and afforded a dispassion-
ate Consideration, to the caws before them, which ought to
secure high respect to their decisions..

lIMIEAS CCM s.
Mr. pi.ATT moved fora writ of Habeas Corpora to irrini.T tip
22 men, now detained on board the athip Severn. They itad
been in custody ever since: the 13th instant, and were part of
the crew of the Cugoms. No proem' of any kind had been
hinted to render their eastody legal.—The COURT granted the
writ.

ATTOILN TES.

Mr. Ptaitsow moved for a rule, calling on an attorney of
the enmity of titaflOrd.(wlusie name at pisrwlit he would not'
mention) to show came why he bhould not be struck off ithe
rolls for practising while in prison. Ile had been found gtilty
attune ofknea at,sewi9,,,,apd,:liad been sentenced to in-
Psismurreur i• and while 12 in custody, under this sentenee, to
directed the levying of a plaint, and the conduct of a ploilit in
replevin,
.
The COIIRT at first doubted whether any proceeding in the
Dounty Court could be regarded as " a writ or process," with
in the words of the 2d Uoo, IL, on which the application wa