The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.

Before the LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE, Justices COLTMAN,
MAULED and ERSKINE.)
PUNTER V. LORD GRANTLY.

Mr Sergeant SHEA made an application of a very
peculiar nature. It appears that the defendant had
refused to pay the costs of the action to the attorney of
plaintiff; on the ground that the latter had'not taken out
his certificate during the years in which the action was
pending. Mr. Sergeant Shea's application upon affi-
davit was that the attorney, Mr. Nettle, should be re-
admitted upon payment of the arrea-s upon his certifi-
cate, and of such nominal fine as the Court might, under
the circumstances, be pleased to impose. He founded
his application upon these facts as set forth in the affidavit,
that Mr. Neale, who resides at Guildford, was admitted an
attorney of this Court in the year 1799—that in the years
1838, 1839, and 1840, he transmitted to his son, who is
an attorney, residing in London, and is his agent here,
the money to take out his certificates, which- the latter
neglected to do. The attorney for the defence was
willing to pay the costs if the Court assented to the pre-
sent motion.
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE, having conferred with the
other Judges, said, that as there had been a great deal
of feeling in this case, and as the parties seemed, from
the latter part of the Learned Sergeant's statement, to
be disposed to come to a better understanding, the Court
would grant a rule to restore Mr. Neale, upon payment
of the arrears, and a fine of 6s. Bd.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA expressed his sense of the kind-
ness of their Lordships, and was bound to say that the
defendant's attorney had made a very handsome offer,
taking all the circumstances into consideratim

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 5.
HARDMAN V. BELHOUSE.

This was an action for 3501., which was tried before
Mr. Justice Wightman, at the late Liverpool Assizes,
when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. lisowLEs now moved for a rule nisi to set that
verdict aside, and for a new trial, or that the verdict
should be entered for the plaintiff. There were several
pleas, but the fourth and latter one, was the only mate-
rial one. It was as to 35e1., that the defendant had de-
livered a certain bill of exchange, drawn by M'Lellan
upon. M.'Lellan, which had been accepted in satis-
faction of the defendant. The evidence in the cause
showed that it was an action against one of the
partners of a house in Canada, to which the
plaintiff had made certain consignments. The defence
was, that the custom of the trade was that the
parties is Canada should purchase good bills in that
colony which were to be accepted in payment of the •
goods so consigned—that at the time the bill in question
was purchased it was a good bill, as M'Lcllan's house
was then in high repute, and therefore was a full pay-
ment of the debt. Ho contended that the Learned Judge
had not loft the only question in the cause to the Jury,
which was, had the bill been received by the plaintiff in
satisfaction of his claim. Now that was abundantly dis •
proved, because as soon as it was received it was pro-
tested for non-acceptance, and the protest sent out to
Canada immediately. They held the bill, 'it was true,
but only as the agent of the defendants. Having sent
out the protest immediately, clearly proved that the
bill was not accepted in satisfaction. That he: con.
ceived was the real question raised by the issue, and
it had not been put before the Jury, which he considered
entitled him to a rule.—ltule nisi granted.
MORRIS, CLERK, V. THE DEKB OF NORFOLK.
Mr. KELLY moved for a new trial in this case, which
was tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the late Suffolk
Assizes, when a verdict was four.d for the plaintiff.
This was an issue directed to try the validity of a mo-
dus set up by the defendant, in respect of a farm, of
about 400 acres, situated in a parish in Norfolk. In
consequence of the form of action it was the
duty of the defendant to prove the affirmative ; he
commenced, and proved that after the passing
of the Tithe Commutation Act, the modus was
set up and r.upported by the Tithe Commissioner,
but the plaintiff appealed, and the issue was directed.
It appeared that the defendant was owner of the farm in
question, as well as much other property in the parish ;
that from the year 1741, up to 1820, it was distinctly
proved that 141. a year had been paid for the tithes ;
during that period there had been five rectors, who had
all received that sum as the tithes fur the farm in ques-
tion; and that from 1803, until 1820, the plaintiff himself
had received the same sum. The reverend plaintiff was in
some way connected with the family of the late Duke.
Upon his death, in that year,:some unpleasant feelings
arose, into which he would not further enter, but these
proceedings arose out of that misunderstanding. To all
the documentary and parole evidence adduced before
the Jury, not ono document or any parole evidence was
offered on the part of the plaintiff ; whether the Counsel
on the other side from any strong expression of opinion
on the part of the Judge, or from some other cause, ha
thought the cause would be better in the hands
of that learned person than in his own, and left the
1 Jury,ude
ease with a very few observations. com-
plained that throughout the whole address of the
Judge to the
alluded to
of fur
the itm mass
sasof ne
evidence
d esnucme
summing
i
he neveronce
on the part of the defendant. He told them that it was
necessary ; in order to make a modus good, it was neces-
prielePd
sary to support it by strong documentary evidence, and
especially by some receipts from former rectors, stating
that the money was received upon a modus.
Mr. Baron 1 lARKE—What is the
the value o tithe in
kind ?