The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 12.

The Court was occupied the greater part of the morn-
ing in hearing special cases of demurrer of no popular
interest.

This was an action for false imprisonment, under these
circumstances:—A boy, alleged to have been sent by the
plaintiff, applied to defendant at the bank of Cox and
Co. for a blank cheque-book in the name of a customer.
Defendant suspecting fraud, followed the boy into the
street, and saw him give the book to the plaintiff, whom
he immediately gave into custody. The Magistrates
ultimately discharged the plaintiff not considering the
fraudulent intention to be proved. For the arrest and
detention this action was brought.
The defendant pleaded justification, under the statute,
alleging that the plaintiff was about to commit an in-
dictable offence.

The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the arguments
upon the demurrer came on this day, Ar. Sergeant
Talfourd for the plaintiff, and Mr. Channell for the dz.-
fendant. But the Court decided for the plaintiff, and
admitted the demurrer.

THE AYLESBURY RAILWAY COMPANY V. MANT.

This was an action to compel the payment of a call,
which was made whilst the defendant was a shareholder,
he having since transferred his shares.
The defendant pleaded that the Company had accepted
the transfer, and thereby released him from all obligation
to pay, the transferee alone being liable.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, in support of the plaintiff's
demurrer, rested upon a special clause in the Company's
Act of Incorporation, in which the present case was in-
cluded, as it provided that every person shall be liable
for all calls made during the time of his being a share-
holder. The Learned Sergeant had not concluded his
argument, when the Court rose at two o'clock.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Nov. 12.
DODD V. MORECROFT.

This was an action to recover the sum of 3L for
work done and performed.
The plaintiff is an accountant, and had been em-
ployed by the defendant, who is an executor to his (de-
fendant's) father, to prepare the necessary documents
for passing the accounts at the Legacy Duty-office, and
obtaining the probate for the will.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
KINDER V. HUBBARD.

This was an action to recover the sum of 5/, due upon
an I. 0. L. to the plaintiff's father, deceased.
Mr. ej-kfIES conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
the defendant defended the action iu person.
The plaintiff is a carpenter and glazier, and pleaded
a set-off for work done and performed. The hand-
writing to the I. 0. U. was proved, and this being the
case for the plaintiff; the defendant addressed the Jury, and
stated that he had a bill against deceased amounting to
31. 2s. 6d., but he could not prove the whole of the items,
as one of his witnesses was absent ; but the action must
be postponed if they did not believe him (defendant).
The SECONDARY.-01), no, it must not. If you have
not your witnesses here that is your fault.
The defendant then read over the items in his bill,
which was principally filled with charges for shaking
carpets and cleaning windows ; one item was 21. for the
loss sustained by defendant in moving a summer-house
for the deceased, but which the son would not now take
to. He failed in proving any of the items, and
The Learned SECONDARY said he thought it would be
better if the parties made an arrangement between them-
selves; but, if the case went on, in strictness he was
bound to reject the set-off. The plaintiff said he would
allow 11. 2s. 6d. off the 1.0. U., and a verdict passed for
the plaintiff for 31. 2s. 6d.
The defendant, in leaving the Court, declared that he
would never pay the money.