The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-03 00:00:00

LIPPIATT V. HOLLEY.

Mr. BETIIELL moved that the defendants might stand
committed to the Fleet for disobeying an injunction,
whereby they and their workmen, &'., were restrained
from pulling down and destroying a mill and premises,
situate at Wellow, in Somersetshire, and for disobeying
an order, whereby they were ordered, on or before the
Ist day of October last, to restore all such parts of the
mill and premises as had been pulled down and de-
stroyed by them. The defendants, upon a bill of re-
demption, were ordered to surrender certain premises
that had been mortgaged to them, the mortgage money
having been satisfied ; but the defendants, instead of
delivering up the property as ordered, had committed
waste upon it.
The MASTER of the ROLLS directed the order for
committal to issue.
The Court will to-morrow (this day) take unopposed
petitions, and afterwards proceed with the remaining
motions.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 2.
This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the
Court was opened with the usual formalities—the Judges
presiding were Lord Denman, and Justices Littledale,
Williams, and Coleridge.
THE QUEEN V. BLIGH.--LIBEL.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK moiled for a rule to show
cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against the defendant, Thomas Bligh, for the publica-
tion of a series of libels upon the members of his own
family. It appeared that the defendant was one of a
numerous family, and that his father, who resided at
Crows-hill Grove, Mile End-road, died, about two years
ago, after making a will, by which he bequeathed his
property to the other members of the family, to the ex-
clusion of the defendant, who was the eldest son. The
defendant lived upon an annuity granted him by the
rest of the family, and after some time had elapsed he
commenced addressing a series of circular letters of the
most libellous character to the different members of the
family, and to the Directors of the Marine Insurance
Company, of whom his brother was one. The Learned
Counsel read several of the letters, which impugned the
character of the family, charged others of them with pro-
curing the will to be made by fraud and false represen-
tations, and contained a variety of other charges. The
affidavits of the applicants distinctly denied every one of
these allegations.—The Court granted the rule.
SIR R. KEAN V. THE ST. GEORGE STEAM-PACKET
COMPANY.

The ATTOForT•GpaItA T. moved in this case for a
rulo to show cause why the verdict of 4.54 obtained
by the defendant should _not, be set aside, and a new
Denman at the sit:,
term, andwas to recover a sum of
trial The Lordabeatdio,nonvrathsetrgierodunbdefoorfelts being against evidence,
tings after last it
Oa, thp value of two horses, shipped in one of the
Company's vessels front London to Qork. The deoln-

ration alleged negligence and want of proper boxes on
the part of the Company's agents ; but it had been
proved by several witnesses that the accommodation
was sufficient, and that the injury arose from " the
perils of the sea," which were distinctly excepted in the
contract. After the vessel left Falmouth, a violent
storm arose, and the two horses were found, on their
arrival at Cork, to have received such injury, as to be
almost entirely useless. Instead, however, of finding a
verdict for 90/., the Jury gave only 451., half the sum.
After detailing the facts of the case at some length,
the Court took time to consider its decision.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, IVov. 2.
JOuL V. JACKSON.
Mr. WIGHTMAN moved for a rule nisi to enter a non-
suit, or. for a new trial in this case, in consequence of
leave reserved to him by Mr. Baron Rolfe, before whom
the trial was had at the late Liverpool assizes. It was
an action Of trot er to recover a quantity of casks which
had been distrained upon in tho hands of a publican ;
it was alleged they were the property of the brewer.
Rule granted.
THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY COMPANY
V. WEBB.
Mr. COWLEY said this action was tried at the late
assizes for Durham, before Mr. Baron Parke, when a
verdict was found for the plantiffs for 8601. He now
moved, by leave of the Learned Judge, for an arrest of
judgment, or that the verdict should be reduced by
the amount of the first call upon certain shares held by
the defendant. The action was brought to recover
the amount of six calls upon such shares. The Learned
Gentleman contended that the calls were irregular, in-
asmuch as the Directors in making the calls had not
complied with the Act of Parliament, which gave them
their powers in the resolution making the first call.
They stated neither time. nor place where the money was
to be paid. The omissions were filled up in the adver-
tisement, but there was no proof that it was inserted
by the Directors. He moved in arrest of judgment
generally, on the insufficiency of the declaration.
Rule granted upon both points.
THE SAME COMPANY V. BIDAULPH.
Rules granted in this case also, the circumstances
being the same.
It was subsequently found out that these railway
cases were entered in the Queen's Bench, which caused
much laughter. The rules, as a matter of course, fell
to the ground.
In the case of
DOE DIM. HARLAND V. HARLAND,
a rule was granted to enlarge a peremptory undertak-
ing until the next assizes.
A similar rule was granted in Marshall v. Parsons.
A. rule nisi was granted in Webster v. Gordon, to
set aside a verdict for the plaintiff, and enter a nonsuit.
WILSON, ASSIGNEE, V. APPLEYARD.
Mr.WELsBEY moved for a new trial in this case,
which was tried at the late York assizes, when a ver-
dict was found for the defendant. The question was
as to whom a sale of goods was made by the bankrupt,
and whether a set-iff could be allowed.—Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
ABOLITION OF THE COURT,
As the Court yesterday was about to rise,
Lord ABINUER (addressing Mr. Simpkinson) said—
When I last saw you in this Court I did not again ex-
pect to see you here. I beg, however, to say, that 1
have thrown no impediment whatever in the way of the
Bill which had been brought into Parliament for the
abolition of this Court passing into a law, although I
understand something of this kind was hinted in the
House of Commons. I received a letter from an ho-
nourable friend of mine, mentioning to me that the Bill
in question was before the House of Commons, but I
took no step whatever in it.
Mr. Simpkinson bowed his assent to the observation
of the Noble Lord, and the Court rose.
Lord Lyndhurst entered the Court in the course of
the day, and after cordially shaking hands with Lord
Abinger, retired. His Lordship looked extremely well,
and seemed in good spirits.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2.

Yesterday, being the first day of term, the Lord
Chief Justice, Justices Bosanquet, Coltman, and Maule,
came into Court at a quarter before two o'clock.
The new Sergeants, Gaselee and Glover, took their
seats within the bar.