The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-13 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

SPENCER V. HENDERSON.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS moved for a rule calling
111300 the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict found
for her in this case should not be set aside and entered
for the defendant, or for a new trial. It was an action
to recover compensation in damages for an illegal dis-
traint, levied at the instance of the defendant, who had
let a house in Albany-street, Regent's Park, to the
plaintiff, Mrs. Spencer, who set up that the goods be-
onged to her daughter, she having removed her own
lurniture. The defendant pleaded the general issue, but
finding that the statute had not been strictly complied
with, he now sought leave to amend his plea to one
setting forth that the plaintiff had clandestinely re-
moved her furniture, and, consequently, to have a new
trial. He admitted, however, that the application was
unprecedented in the books.
Lord DENMAN thought it would be dangerous to
create a precedent, and refused the application.
NONSUITING.
In a running-down case, involving no point of public
interest, iu which Mr. WHITEHURST moved for a new
trial, or for leave to enter a nonsuit,
Lord DENMAN said it was now too late to move for a
112116114. When he first took his seat on the Bench, he
Was given to understand that the Court entertained a
different opinion, but he had thought that his view of the
Batter was well understood. He would give an illustra-
on of his view :—A counsel, in the course of a cause,
Moved for a nonsuit, and the judge acceded to his appli -
eittio; but, instead of availing himself of this permis-
sion he called more witnesses, and showed, for instance,
oy their testimony, that the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict, was the judge in such a case to do so foolish a
thingas to permit, after that, to the defendant to move
for leave to enter a nonsuit?
This case was T INGLEY V. DALTON.
tried in this Court during the last term.
Tin was an action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah
1 €7, against the defendant, a butcher at Westmor!-
.asi
d, in whose service she had been as a domestic
:runt, to recover compensation in damages for injuries
~111,eh she alleged she had sustained in consequence of
the detention of her clothes by the defendant. The
JuJulyfound a verdict for the plaintiff for 371. 10s., being
I_los. for her clothes, and 20/. as damages.
Alr. Sergeant SHEA now moved for a rule calling upon
!i plaintiff to show cause why a nonsuit should not be
le7_tried, pursuant to the leave of the Learned Judge who
t,:d the case (Mr. Justice Erie), or for a new trial, on
and
groundo that the verdict was against the evidence,
issue nbe t account of the excessive damages. The point at
between the parties was whether a month's notice
was or was not given, and therefore whether the con-
tract between them was
plaintiff left the service ofat
ad given the usual nottaihcneee,
h • him ndbdeufteoerhdnaoett.at tshheetsimaied
she
said she had not,
zand. when she stated her intentione of leaving, as her
once had expired, he refused to allow her ; she, how-
ever,seu, did leave, but he detained her boxes, for which,
however, she made no subsequent application. There
„er no direct evidence to show that she had given notice.
uncle stated at the trial that she told him she had
done so.
Lord DENMAN said Mr. Justice Erie was dissatisfied
With the verdict.
the The dourt considered it right that
_ulewhole matter should be re-opened.
nisi granted.
wER
OF A JUDGE AT CHAMBERS TO DETAIN A CER-
TIFICATED BANKRUPT IN CUSTODY.—IN RE SMITH.r
„..,31 • WATSON, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
iortYg several orders, made at chambers by Mr. Justice
this case, should not be discharged. He said the
q_erestton turned upon the construction to be put upon
rain
clauses of the existing Bankruptly Act, namely,
could be
a bankrupt, whose certificate had been confirmed,
be detained in custody on the order of a judge
at chambers, before whom it was proved that the bank-
r,upt had lust 201. at play at one sitting. On the first
y of last term he applied to the Court to liberate
!lir, Smith from the Queen's Bench prison, where he is
at i present confined, but the Court was of opinion that
• e Case was not within its jurisdiction, but within the
Jurisdiction of the Learned Judge who had made the
_orders. He had made a similar application to the Corn-
Zrn Pleas, but that Court had not yet given its decision.
• Smith was taken in execution and was committed to
e, Queen's Bench before the issuing of the fiat ; be
-ruusequently appeared before a Commissioner of Bank-
Y, at Bristol, who granted his certificate. An ob-
e:.°ll Was then made to the confirniation of the certi-
i'll'e on the ground that he had lost more than 20/. at
ruaY at one sitting. A Mr. Waring was
concerned in that opposition, but the Com-
missioner considered that he was entitled
to his certificate, and he accordingly confirmed it. He
Was subsequently arrested. An application was after-
Wards made to Mr. Justice Erie to discharge the de-
fendant out of custody on theproduction of his certificate.
This application was opposed on affidavits which set
forth the allegation of gaming, and
been proved to the Learned Judge's the charge having
re-
fused to discharge him. satisfaction, he A_ second summons was taken
out before the same Learned Judge in which the allega-
tion was attempted to be denied, Whichwas dismissedtaken eet with costs. A further summons was
in order to answer the charges brought forward on the
second with no better result. Now, he asked the Court
to rescind the second order, that being sufficient, on the
ground that the Learned Judge could not detain the
defendant in custody after the production of hihsrcinergtiinfig-
cate. He should thus have an opportunity of
under the attention of the Court a most important
clause of the Bankruptcy Act. He contended that it
Was! not within the province of a judge at chambers to
enter into a charge of gaming against a certificated bank..
rapt, but of the Bankruptcy Court, and that all that was
intended by the Legislature was, that on the production
of a certificate by a bankrupt he should be entitled to his
discharge.
Mr. Justice PATTESON supposed the Learned Counsel
did not intend to carry his argument so far as to say
that proceedings in a bankruptcy court were final.
Mr. WATSON did not. Unquestionably it was open to
the proper tribunal to review the decisions of bankruptcy
courts. The sth and 6th Victoria, cap. 122, sec. 42, which
Was substantially the same as the sth Geo. 111., was
the only clause in the Bankruptcy Act, which gave any
Power to a judge at chambers. It did not empower him
to try the validity of the certificate, but stated that if a
bankrupt was taken into custod after being certifi-
cated, it should be lawful for a judge of the
court in which the judgment on which he was
arrested was obtained at chambers; on producing
his certificate, to order the proper officer to dis
charge such bankrupt without payment of fees. The
Words, "it shall be lawful" meant, he held, that it was
!niperative on a junge at chambers to discharge a
bankrupt simply on his producing his certificate. The
38th clause specified 12 or 14 acts, the commission of one
o.y more of which, one of which was losing 201. at one sit-
, if proved, did not entitle him to obtain a certifi-
Te. Then, again, no;more than one charge of gamb-
r, "ug could be Bet up 3 Whereas Hyena charges were

t!,
Ant

DEW V. RAWSON.
Mr. CROMPTON moved for a rule to show cause why
the plaintiff in this case should not be dispauperised, in
consequence of repeated delays in coming to trial, and
ordered to pay all the costs incurred in this cause. The
plaintiff had sued in forma pauperis. On the
first notice of trial being given he withdrew the record,
and on two subsequent occasions, when the cause came
on, be was absent, although the defendant was present.
On these gronnds it was sought to dispauperise him, and
make him pay the costs.
Application granted for a rule nisi.
SHARP V. BUTCHER.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bagley appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for the sum
of 881., given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The de-
fence was that this 881. was the balance of a sum of 1001,
which had been borrowed at 10 per cent., and that the
transaction being usurious, the plaintiff was not entitled

to recover.
The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, remarked that
it seemed to be admitted that all the money was bor-
rowed at the rate of 10 per cent., and that rate was an
illegal and usurious one. It was a question, however, as
to whether there was anything to show that the 88/. was
the balance of the sum of 1001. borrowed at such usurious
rate.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
881., and 21. for interest.

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY)'
PACIFIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. LEWIS.
In this case the ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained a rule
nisi for a new trial.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)
LANE V. DIXON.-IMPORTANT TO LODGING-HOUSE

BEEPERS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Lane, a medical
practitioner, against the defendant, for a trespass. In
1844, the plaintiff rented the first floor of a house in
Westminster, and with the permission of the tenant of
the premises, he put up a brass plate on the front door.
Shortly after this, the premises were let to the defendant,
but before his term for the occupancy of the rooms had
ended- On the defendant taking possession of the
premises, on the 12th of May, and when
the plaintiff was absent, the defendant removed
his brass plate, and occupied his rooms. When
the plaintiff returned, the defendant resisted
his entrance, alleging that he had not taken the rooms
from him, and should not therefore be allowed to con-
tinue. Plaintiff brought his action and recovered da-
mages, 301. In Trinity term last Mr. Sergeant Byles
obtained a rale to set aside the verdict.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins was to-day heard against the
rule, and Mr. Sergeant Byles in reply.
Lord Chief Justice WILDE said the rule had been
moved for on two grounds—first, that in relation to the
alleged trespass there was no evidence adduced on the
trial to sustain the verdict of the jury. Now, on this
point, it had been proved on trial that the
plaintiff took the rooms from a previous tenant
for a certain period, and that the defendant
came into possession of the premises before
that term had expired. It had also been shown that
when the plaintiff came in, one day before the expiration
of the said term, he found the defendant occupying his
rooms, who told him he had no longer possession, and
refused him admission. In his (the Lord Chief Justice's)
opinion, therefore, the evidence of trespass was of such
a character as to warrant the verdict which had been
given, that on this head the rule should be discharged.
°With regard to the other point, in which it was con-
tended that the brass plate was attached to the
premises, and not in possession of the plain-
tiff, he must say he could not view the matter
in that light. The door-plate was the chattel of the
plaintiff, and must follow the right of property, as ir,
did not appear that the defendant had fixed the plate,
while there was every ground for supposing that the
plate was fixed on the door by the plaintiff, to remain
there so long as he occupied the lodgings. On this
ground also he considered the rule must be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred, and the rule
was accordingly dischargud.

PATER V. BAKER.-THE METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT

ACT.

This was an action brought by Mr. Pater, a solicitor
residing in Agar-town, parish of St. Pancras, against
Mr. Baker, the district surveyor, under the Metropolitan
Building Act, for dander of title. A great portion of
Agar-town was built by Mr. Agar, to whom the de
fendant is agent ; and in the course of last year
the latter advertised the carcases of several houses
for sale, by Mr. Kennedy, an auctioneer. On the
day of the sale, and; before the sale had commenced, the
defendant went into the auctioneer's room, and said he
did not come there as a buyer, but to state to purchasers,
if there were any such there, that he would not allow
the houses to be finished till the roads were made good.
He could not compel the making of the road, but he had
the power to stop the finishing of the buildings. Subse-
quently the buildings and the roads were referred to the
consideration of the official referees, who decided
that the road-way was wide enough to comply with the
provisions of the Act, only that it was in a very rough
and unfinished state. An action was then brought for
slaader of title, and a verdict obtained for the plaintiff.
In last term Mr. Sergeant Channell moved for a rule to
set aside the verdict, on the ground that that there
was no evidence of tmalice on the part of the
plaintiff, and that the defendant was acting
under the authority of the Act in the step he
had taken ; also that there was a material variance be-
tween the declaration and the evidence on which the
verdict was given.
Mr. KEATING and Mr. DOWDSWELL were heard
against the rule, maintaining that, though the Act gave
the district surveyor a right of inspection and of reporting
to the official referees, it did not authorise defendant to
use the words he had used on the day of sale.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Sergeant Byles re-
plied at length.
The Court took time to consider.

SECONDARIES'-(THIS DAY.)
There was only one undefended case tried to-day.

BANKRUPTCY-(THIS DAY.)

CHAMBERS AND CHAMBERS.
To-day was appointed for an audit under the estate of
these bankrupts, who, it will be recollected, were bankers
in Bond-street.
In the course of the proceedings, which were of no
general interest,
Mr. Espin, the solicitor to the assignees, called his
Honour's attention to the case, observing that a dividend
meeting will be held on the 19th inst., but as the com-
mission of bankruptcy was issued twenty years ago, it
was very probable that it would escape the notice of many
of the creditors who had not proved. The dividend
which would be declared on the 19th would not be the
last, but unless the whole of the debts were then proved
it would not be probable that sufficient assets would be
left to pay on the next occasion.
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked whether the meet-
ing had not been advertised.
Mr. Espin said it had, but his object in addressing his
Honour was in the hope that his observations would find
their way into the newspapers ; for after so great a lapse
of time creditors torgot to look after the estate. The
total debts were 240,0001., of which under 220,000/. were
proved.
The COMMISIIONER asked what dividend had been
paid in ?
Mr. Espin said 9s. Tho next dividend would be 45.,
and there would be a final divideno of 3s. in the pound
from funds arising from the Chancery suit in respect to
the Opera House. &c.
His HONOUR said it certainly was a very old commis-
sion, but no doubt it would reach the ears of those cre-
ditors who were alive that the concern was at last to be
wound up.