The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-14 00:00:00

,AIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN v. HINCKLEY.
teat Sir P. TITESIGER, on the part of Mr. Hall, a magis-
e for the counties of Stafford and Derby, moved for
':,. criminal information to be filed against Arthur
:441111
oy, clerk of the peace for the county of Stafford,
aor endeavouring to provoke Mr. Hall to a breach of the
taeac• It appeared that the parties had long been at
til' cm account of the removal of a fence, and that
uttVkley had adopted all sorts of methods ot
andsyd
to 4: and
Arr.
jusatiteletngth applied the terms felon cowar
at gentleman.
show e Rix—There is sufficient for a rule to
ause.
Tt 1 E , n
: oa
rudNe 78 - CI
.. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF THE PARISH OF
oollse ho-ei:A.,E: 1 ST. DUNSTAN, STEPNEY.
....ENERAL in this case, which was
Lo
eh 'sPuted church-rates, obtained a rule calling upon
to
shureh
of the parish of St. Dunstan, Stepney,
colt ow
cause why a mandamus should not issue
Paritsrnding them to allow Mr. Edward Horton, a
Dree I°.rier, to i
-nspect the v( stry book, containing th.e
331 eechegs f
eeg,,- °- vestry meeting which took place In
... .-.ber t
-.mile& -ast, at which a church-rate was proposed and

EXCHEQUER—(THIS DAY.)
This LAMERT V. HEATH.
the cause was tried before the Lord Chief Baron
.at
ft!st sittings after term at Guildhall, and a verdict
"u4cl for the plaintiff:
the r. IIikRTIN now moved for a rule nisi to set aside
eviti'verdict, on the ground of misdirection, and as against
caseelle° Plaintiff had requested the defendant to Coast
Railway for him a number of shares in the Kentish Coast
belies Company. The defendant purchased what he
Were '" to be genuine shares in the company, but which
i9safterwards discovered to have been fraudulently
postl:(1 ; and the present action was brought for the pur-
for
tkarecovering ba .k the money paid to the defendant
the "se shat es. The questions left the the jury were, was
the,se,riP sold by defendant to plaintiff fraudulent scrip;
eirt,", if the scrip was really fraudulent, what was the
intended
it, t, and what was it which the plaintiff really
buy, and the defendant intended to sell.
net r• MARTIN now contended that these questions were
„vproyerly left to the jury.
real] Baron. PARKE—The question seems to me to be
r
L
shay 1 this, what did the parties mean by the purchase o
teares in the Kentish Coast Railway Company. It ap-
-8 that there were no other shares in the market
Down
pelf iB.B Kentish Coast Railway shares; it is, therefore,
teudeetlY reasonable to suppose that the plaintiff
ed to
uese shares
purchase, and bargained. for the delivery of,
thi r• Baron. ALDERSIN—In my opieien the plaintiff in
Rule g°ase has gotranted what he bargained for.
CLARK V. NEWSOM AND ANOTHER.
went on
case, which was an action fir false imprison-
In °II an alleged charge of forging railway scrip, and
nirreh a verdict was returned for defendant, a rule
thel for a new trial was obtained by Sir If. Thesiger, on
Chi ground of misdirection on the part of the Lord
itt Baron, before whom the cause was tried.
"Ith reference to the point reserved at the trial, as to
Whether the fortyeor onlry of the scrip amounted to a felony,
„ et
that 0 a misdeamnour, the Court of oinion
offence did net amount to a felowereloner inasmuch as
scrip Was not an accountable receipt.—Rule granted.