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

CARPENTER V.. CLARRSON.

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule calling upon au attorney
of the Court to show cause why he should not pay a sum
of money due to the plaintiff in this cause, pursuant to
his undertaking. It appeared from the affidavits, that
the action had been brought to recover a balance of 401
due upon two bills of exchar.ge. The plea was a
denial of the acceptance. The action was pro-
ceeded with, and the defendant, who claimed to act as
attorney for the defendant, gave an undertaking to pay
the money and costs conditionally. The attorney had
previously obtained a cognovit from the defendant for
nearly% 1,0001. ; this was, no doubt, with a view to enable
him to pay some of his debts, and the condition of the
undertaking was, that he should pay the debt and costs
(settled at 50L) before executing his cognovit. He had
neglected to do so, and the parties came to the Court
for relief.—Application granted.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY V. BURLINGTON.
Mr. OGLE applied fora rule to have the above cause
tried before the Lord Chief Justice of this Court. This
was an action on a bond given by parties taking out
letters of administration. The defendant had suffered
judgment to go by_
_default, and, as the Court
was well aware, it therefore became necessary
to suggest breaches upon the. record. These statements
were of great length, and many points of great difficulty
were likely to arise. By the Bth and 9th William 111.
all such causes were directed to be tried before the Lord
Chief Justice of, this Court; but by the 3d and 4th
William IV. it was enacted that in all such cases the
writs should be tried before the Sheriff of the county,
unless the Court, or one of the Judges of it, should
otherwise order. He made the present application on
behalf of the plaintiff, and he trusted his Lordship would
grant him a rule absolute in the first instance.
Mr. Justice PATTESON could not grant a rule absolute
in the first instance. The rule had better be to show
cause.—Rule nisi granted.
At the sitting of the Court, Lord Ernest Bruce took
the oaths as a Privy Councillor.

CROXFORD V. RICKARDS.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, which
had been tried before the Under Sheriff of the county
of Middlesex, and in which the Jury had returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. FRASER—I now move for a rule nisi, calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial
had. He made this motion, first, on the ground that the
defendant had been taken by surprise. On several occa-
sions the defendant had, for the convenience of
the plaintiff, consented to postpone the trial, and
on the occasion when it took place the defendant
applied for a postponement, trusting the same courtesy
would be extended to him which he had so frequently
extended to his opponent. This, however, had been re-
fused him by the plaintiff's attorney, although the Coun-
sel for the plaintiff was willing to do so. The de-
fendant was consequently not prepared with witnesses to
prove his set off. Another ground was that the plaintiff
had given no evidence whatever as to the value of the
goods, and that the quality of the goods supplied was
different from what was stated in the bill of particulars.
On these grounds he naade the application.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, on looking over the affidavits,
said the case seemed to have been conducted very loosely
on both sides. He thought the Court was bound to
grant the rule nisi.—Application granted.