The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-27 00:00:00

birb Mbitton

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Special Jury.)

REVENUE CASE.-ATTORNEY GENERAL V. LABRON.
In this case a verdict was taken by consent for the
Crown, for the sum of 3,0002
(Before a Common Jury.)
SIMMONDS V. PAYNE.

In this case Mr. Chambers anti Mr. Piggott appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Martin for the defence.
This was an action brought for the purpose of reco-
vering 261. 16v. upon a bill of exchange drawn by the
plaintiff upon the defendant.
The defendant pleaded a set-off for goods supplied to
the amount of 20/. 18s. Id., and that the balance of the
bill was included'in another bill of 461., which was sub-
sequently paid by the defendant.
It appeared, however, that consideration was given
for the second of the bills previous to the one becoming
due upon which the action was now brought.
The verdict was accordingly given for the plaintiff
for the sum of 261. 165., with interest thereon.

STADMAN V. NOORTS.
This was au action brought to recover compensation in
damages for a false imprisonment on a charge of felony
by the defendant.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Taylor appeared for the plaintiff.
It appeared, from the evidence, that the plaintiff car•
ried on business as a smith in the neighbourhood of the
Mile-end-road. Having occasion to raise some money,
he mortgaged the lease of the premises which he
occupied to a person, who advanced a considerable sum
on the same. Having occasion to enlarge his premises
he obtained a further sum of money on the mortgage.
The enlargements which he made consisted of a wooden
out-house, with a tiled roof, but no mortar was used in
the erection of the building. The plaintiff having been
brought into difficulties, the sheriff was put in formal
possession of the premises by the mortgagee, the plaintiff
receiving permission to remove the buildings which he
had previously erected. Upon his proceeding, however,
to do so, he was given in charge by the defendant, clerk
to Messrs. Maurice and Co., solicitors. Having entered
the charge in the book, the defendant refused to sign it,
whereupon the plaintiff was at once discharged from
custody. The present action was in consequence brought
to recover compensation for false imprisonment.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 251.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Baron Alderson,
Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Baron Rolfe, Mr. Baron
Platt, and Mr. Justice Williams.)
THE BARON DR BODE V. THE QUEEN.

The Attorney-General having obtained a rule, calling
on the plaintiff in error to show cause why the writ he
had brought in this case should not be quashed,
Mr. Sergeant MANNING now showed cause. The
writ had been brought by the present Baron de Bode, as
administrator to his deceased father, and was objected
to by the Attorney General on several distinct grounds,
the chief of which were that an administrator could not
have a writ of error, because he was not a party to the
record in the court below ; or if he could it would be
necessary to have a stirs facias, in the first instance,
to apprize the Crown that a judgment had been re-
corded, but that the fruits of it had not been en-
joyed ; and that being necessary, a seire facies could
not be maintained against the Crown. The Learned
Sergeant answered the several objections on the autho-
rity of cases in the older books, and on that of several
recent Acts of Parliament.
Mr. M. D. HILL followed on the same side.

The Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Wadding-
ton, appeared for the Crown.
The arguments were not concluded when the Court
rose.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.
Justice CRESSWELL.)
THOMSON V. WEB%

The trial of this railway case, which occupied the
Court nearly the whole of yesterday, was resumed
to-day. The defence was that the plaintiff had already
been overpaid for mapping the line, and that the plans
and sections deposited with the Board of Trade and
clerks of the peace, were so imperfect and incorrect that
the line was thrown out by the Standing Orders' Com-
mittee. It appeared that great objections were placed
in the way of the surveyors by the opposing landowners,
and that the survey could only be carried on by stealth.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff for the full
amount.