The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-22 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.

WASDIS V. BRIDGES, &C.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from pulling down certain houses in Westminster,
under the power of an Act entitled, " The Westminster Im-
provement Act." It appeared that the defendants were the
commissioners under this Act, and the plaintiff was the per-
son who originated the speculation for which that Act had
been obtained, and the object of which was to make a street
from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace, which
would pass through property which he held under lease from
the Farmers' Charity and from the dean and chapter of
Westminster. The proposed project of the plaintiff was ap-
proved of by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who
agreed to give 50,0001. towards its prosecution. In February,
1845, the plaintiff assigned his interest in this scheme to two
parties named Mason and Taylor, and an agreement was
entered into as to the terms. A Bill was subsequently in-
troduced into Parliament, which received the Royal Assent,
to carry out the proposed improvement; but the agreement
not having been duly executed by Mason and Taylor, the
plaintiff sought by the present motion to prevent the exe-
cution of the work until a satisfactory-arrangement should
be made.

Mr. KINDERSLEY opened the case for the plaintiff to-day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—<THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCRLLOR OF ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR took motions to-day, but no case of interest,
except to the parties concerned, came before the Court during
the morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice DENAIAN and a
full Court.)
THE QUEEN V. SAUNDERS.
Mr. PAIIIILICT moved for a rule to show cause why, a
criminal information should not be filedagainst Mr. Saunders,
a magistrate in the county of Carmarthen, for committing
Wu,. Griffiths to gaol, and refusing to take bail, under the
following circumstances :
On the 2d of December last, the applicant and his son
were walking along a tram road, oripublic way, near Lla •
netbly, towards the sea-coast, where there was a quantity of
wild fowl. It was then eleven at night. A person came up
to them on horseback, and on seeing them collared Wm.
Griffiths, who had a gun upon his shoulder, and
raised his whip as if to strike him. Wm.
Griffiths raised his gun as if to strike him,
and the person let go of his collar, saying
I know you, and then rode off. On the Friday following, a
policeman came to the house of the applicant at eight
o'clock in the evening, and took them into custody. They
were conveyed to the house of a person named M'Kennyon,
and then instead of being taken before the petty sessions of
Llanethly, which were held on the following day, he was con-
veyed nearly twenty miles across the country, to Caermar-
then, and taken before Mr. Saunders. M'Kennyon deposed
that he found the plaintiffs walking on the property of the
tramroad and canal company, and, as he believed, with the
intention of killing game. He admitted that there was no
game within two miles of the place where ho saw them,
but he stated that a hare skin was found in their house.
That skin was proved to have been left there by a friend for
the purpose of being sold. Mr. Saunders was much
out of temper, and committed the elder prisoner for trial.
stating that he should not take bail. Applications were sub-
sequently made to Mr. Saunders to admit the applicant to
bail, but he refused. The trial took place on the Bth of Ja•
nuary at the Carmarthen Quarter Sessions, and a verdict of
acquittal was given, and the applicant had been previously
convicted of felony and transported, but was pardoned after
four years in the hulks, and since that time had been known
as a respectable man, so that the refusal to take bail could
not be upon that ground.—Application granted.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.
Mr. Lusw stated that there were two prisoners in Court,
brought up by writ of habeas corpus. They had been sen-
tenced to transportation in Jersey, and the question hrose as
to the jurisdiction of the Court to award that sentence. He
would not press the application, as he understood that the
Attorney-General was not prepared.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that no notice had been
given of the application. The usual course was, to give
notice of such application, and furnish the Crown with a copy
of the sentence, &c., or else merely to move for a rule nisi.
It was merely by accident that he found that such an appli-
cation was about to be made.

Mr. Usti suggested that the proceedings should be de-
ferred to any other day that the Court might name.
Lord DENMAN said that on Monday the Court would bear
the application. There would be no necessity to bring up
the privonera again.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WILLIAMS V. CLARKS.

This case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at the
sittings in London after Hilary Term last, when a verdict
was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON' now moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be had, .
or a nonsuit entered. The
action was brought upon a foreign of exchange made at
Bruges, in Belgium, by Charles Williams, the plaintiff,
directed to one Captain Dickson, and payable to the order of
defendant, for the sum of 200/. The bill was endorsed by
the defendant to the plaintiff, and the whole case turned upon
the question, whether or not the defendant had had notice of
the dishonour. The evidence proved that notice (if notice
it was) had been given in due time. The Learned Counsel
moved on an affidavit of surprise, which stated that it was
only at the time that the trial commenced that he was
aware that the drawer and the plaintiff were one and the
same person.—Rule refused.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DAY. )
/
(Before Mr. Under- SheriffBIIRCRELL )
FRASER V. SIRED.
This was ari action to recover the sum of 171. 3s. Bd.
on a guarantee. The defendant suffered judgment to go
by default.
Mr. CHARNOCK, who appeared for the plaintiff, said
that he would take the case as undefended.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said, that perhaps the defendant
might appear after the case was over.
Mr. CHARNOCK said he would run the risk, lie then
stated that the defendant was anxious to raise a snm of
1,3001. on an estate, and he applied to the plaintiff for
the amount, giving him a guarantee that the plaintiff
should be indemnified against any expenses in investi-
gating the title, &c., if it should be found defccire, or
the, negotiation should go off in consequence of the
neglect or default of the defendant.
Mr. Burton, who had acted as the attorney on both
sides, proved that the negotiation went off in conse-
quence of the defendant's neglect; the law expenses
amounted to 141. 13s. Bd., and the surveyor's charges
to 61. 10s., which had not been paid.
Mr. CHARNOCK said the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover it, as he was liable to the curveyor.
The jury gave a verdict for 17/. &. bd.
COGAN V. FISHER.
The plaintiff in this action is an oil and colour mer-
chant, and the defendant a painter, Bce. The defendant

had suffered judgment to go by tit:fault, but appeared in
person to deny that he was halt bted to the plaintiff. as
directly he was served with the writ, he went to platnt►ff
and paid him the debt and got a receipt.
Mr. LEWIS, the plaintiff's solicitor, said that -that
question had been settled before Mr. Justice Erle.
The defendant said that he was not asked to show the
receipt, but the fact was Mr. Lewis was going on for
costs.
The UNDER -SHE SIFF asked whether the defendant
had the receipt ?
The defendant said he had got it at home.
The UNDER - SHERIFF—Did you employ any attorne3 ?
Defendant-No, I only spoke to a friend, who said he
would "do" the case for me.—(Laughter.)
The UNDER • SHERIFF—It appears that he has.
There being, however, no plea of payment, nor apY
evidence that such was the fact, the jury gave a verchet
fur the amount claimed,

HOPKINS V. PRIDE.
The plaintiff in this action is a shoemaker in Lambeth,
and the defendant is a surgeon, residing at Groitrewea
House, Pentardulais, near Swansea. The demand Wag
for 121., for the board and lodging of an Want, named
Clarissa llopkins Pride.
Mr. ATKINSON appeared for the plaintiff, and pro-
ceeded to state the case—that the defendant had for-
merly been a surgeon at Blenheim-street Dispenser}',
and the daughter of the plaintiff consulted him profes-
sionally, and this ultimately led to her seduction, as
would be clearly shown.
Mr. Loma. objected to such statements, as the bare
question was, whether the defendant ever undertook to
pay the plaintiff?
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it would be much better if
the matter could be amicably arranged, so as to avoid
unnecessary exposure, but if the case went on lie coal
not prevent all the circumstances which were connected
with it from being stated. .
Mr. LOCKE having declined consenting to the arrange"
merit,
Mr. ATKINSON continued, that as to the paternity of
the defendant there could be no question, as he had been
present at the christenimg, and it was at his desire
that the child was named after him.
Several letters were also put in, in which the de-
fendant said that he would pay the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's daughter was then called, and gave
evidence as to the nature of the connexion between her
and the defendant.
Other witnesses were called, but could not prove that
defendant had ever contrated with the plaintiff to keep
the child, and
Mr. LOCKE submitted that there must be a nonsuit.
Mr. ATKINSON said 'here was evidence on the face of
the letters of an existing contract.

'The UNDER-SHERIFF considered that there was suffi-
dent evidence to go to the jury.
Mr. Loom then addressed the jury, and contended
that the evidence was insufficient, under the decisioc in
the case of Mortimer v. Wright, 6 Meeson and Willsby,
and that even if the child had been legitimate, a father
would not be bound to pay for its support unless he
contracted with the party, but he might have been made,
liable by au order of a magistrate under the 43'
Elizabeth.
The UNDER-SHERIFF left it to the jury to siy whether,
from the evidence and letters, they could infer that de*
fendant had ever contracted to pay for the maintenance
of the child to the plaintiff.
The jury immediately gave a verdict for the amount
claimed.