The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-10 00:00:00

appeared, beaded " Church-rate Rioters' Anniversary,"
in which it was stated that the Church-rate rioters at
Chatham bad held their anniversary at the Unitarian
Tavern, alias the Queen's Posting-house, and that there
bad been the usual assemblage of infidels, Chartists. and
Church-haters, and then proceeded to state that Mr. Dodd
was present. Mr. Dodd's affidavit denied that he had
been guilty of rioting or indecent conduct, and he swore
distinctly that he was not an infidel or a Chartist. Under
these circumstances he thought he was entitled to a rule.
Mr. Justice PATTESCN did not mean to say that the ex-
pressions made use of were at all justifiable, but he thought
the defendant too thin-skinned a great deal. The article
did not impute to him that he was an infidel or a Chartist,
but only that he was present at a meeting where such per-
sons were.
Mr. COCKBURN—The defendant swears the allegations
are false.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, that admitting the whole of
the allegations to be false, he did not think them of suffi-
cient weight to warrant a criminal information. It was a
case that ought to be left to the ordinary tribunals. The
Court would have nothing to do but to hear cases of li
criminal information, if such applications as these were
granted.—Application refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
WILSON V. BAILEY AND OTHERS.

This was an action on a bill of exchange, given by
one of the defendants, wholesale druggists, to the plain-
tiff, a livery stable kerper, in discharge of his account
against the firm, for hire of gigs and horses to their
travellers. It appeared that part of the debt was incurred
by a previous partnership, one member of which (Clift)
retired at the end of 1837, giving way to Lewis, who
commenced in the concern on the Ist of January, 1838,
but claimed to be exempt from liabilities until the 16th of
that month, when the deed of partnership was signed.
The bill in question for 601. was given by Bailey
in discharge of the debt standing from the old partner-
ship, as well as lOr so much as was incurred under
the new one. The Jury found against the new firm, that
is. substantially, against Lewis for 291 , or from the 16th
of January.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD obtained a rule nisi to enter a
verdict fur the amount from the Ist of January, on a point
reserved.

Mr. WORTLEY Showed cause against the rule, and con-
tended that the plaintiff was not at all entitled to a ver-
dict, inasmach as the bill was given in fraud of the new
company for a debt due in part by the old one, plaintiff
being cognisant of the fraud ; and further that in any case
the evidence failed to fix the partnership of Lewis before
the 16th of January, Is3B.
After a reply fmm Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD,
_ . • • • • • •

The COUTO' held that Lewis was liable in the whole
debt, occurring from the Ist of January, and the rule for
entering a verdict for the plaintiff as against him to that
effect was made absolute ; the damages against the other
defendants, Bailey and Potter, (who were clearly liable in
the whole bill, and had suffered judgment by default) 'to be
assessed.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

( Sittings in Banco.)
DIANSEI.I. V. AINSWORTH.

Mr. RAMSITAW moved to set aside a verdict with 201.
damages, which had been given against the defendant at
the late Assizes held At Liverpool, before Mr. Baron Rolfe.
The action was brought to recover damages against the
defendant for not attending as a witness, according to a
subpoena served upon him. The defendant was on the
steps of the Crown Court in Liverpool on the day of the
trial, when he was subpoenaed by the clerk of the plaintiff;
ha said it would be inconvenient, bat he would attend.
He was a policeman, and was otherwise engaged when the
trial was called on about three hours afterwards, in conse-
quence of which the plaintiff alleged he was obliged to
withdraw the record. The Learned Gentleman contended
upon all the cases in the books that this was not a sufficient
service—it was clearly laid down that witnesses were not
obliged to attend, to their own detriment, unless they were
subpoenaed in sufficient time to allow them to arrange their
affairs. In this case there had heetrno such sufficient time
allowed, and the witness was,not bound to attend upon his
peril.
The COURT said there was nothing in the point raised,
for the defendant had cured every thing by his promise to
attend; had he refused it was probable that the plaintiff
might have obtained other testimony.
Air. RAMSEIAW then moved for an arrest of judgment, on
the ground that the declaration did not set out that the
defendant had been served in good and proper time, so
as to bring the case fully before the Court.
Mr. Baron PARKE—We cannot grant a rule upon that
point ; the declaration alleges that the reasonable and pro-
per expenses were tendered, and that the defendant pro-
mised to attend ; that is sufficient.—Rule refused.

WILLIABIS V. NOLSTEAD.

When this ease;;;l3efcre the Jury, a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff, with 6001. damages, subject to a reference.
The referee made an award, vacating the verdict for the
plaintiff, and entering it for the defendant, upon all the
pleas.
Mr. TOMLINSON now moved to set aside the award, upon
the ground of inconsistency.
The COURT. however, were of opinion that the arbitrator
had acted in accordance with the order of reference made
at Nisi Prius, and it was therefore goud.—Rule refused.