The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

CROCRFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.

Mr. JAMES moved in this cause fora new trial, on the
ground of misdirection of the Learned Judge who tried
the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 15.

NEWTON AND WIFE V. BOODLE AND OTHERS.-ALLEGED

TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

In this case, which has arisen out of certain proceed-
ings in Cheltenham regarding Admiral Rickett's pro-
perty, a rule was obtained by the plaintiffs last term, to
show cause why a verdict of guilty should not be en-
tered against Mr. Norman, one of the defendants ;
and why the judgment entered in last Michaelmas term
should not be set aside, a term's notice not having been
given. The plaintiff complained that the late Lord
Chief Justice had improperly withheld the evidence ad-
duced against the defendant Norman from going to the
jury, and that a bill of exceptions, taken by the plaintiff,
had not been sealed before the death of the Learned
Judge. The action was-for the alleged false imprison-
ment of Mrs. Newton, who had been taken on a writ.
The defendants are Mr. Wroe, the registered proprietor
of the Cheltenham Examiner; Mr. Norman, said to be
the editor ; and their law agents, Messrs. Boodle and
Lawcott ; and the proceedings arose out of a previous
action, "Newton v. Norman," for an alleged libel in the
newspaper respecting the claims of Mrs. Newton to
Admiral Rickett's property, in which a verdict went ler
the defendant. A writ for the costs was issued, on
which Mrs. Newton was arrested ; hence the present
action, which was tried on the 20th of February,
1845. To the declaration not guilty and a
justification were pleaded. A verdict of not
guilty was given on behalf of Norman, and with regard
to the other three, though the trespass was proved, a
verdict of justification was returned in their favour.
After some other proceedings for delay on the part of
the plaintiff, judgment against him was signed on Nov.
14th last, hence the rule fixed for argument today.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOU RD was heard at some length
against the rule, contending there • was not a tittle
of evidence against Mr. Norman, and that with regard
to the other point, the regular course of practice had
been strictly adhered to. The rule should therefore be
discharged.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL followed on the same side.
Mr. NEWTON, who conducted his own case, replied
in a very long speech.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the rule came before
the Court under peculiar circumstances. It appeared
on the trial that the Lord Chief Justice had ruled that
there was no evidence for the jury against Norman. A
bill of exceptions was tendered against the decision
of the Judge, and also for the non-production
of the writ, or evidence of the writ, on which the
alledged trespass had taken place. A note of the
exceptions was handed to the Judge, and subsequently
the sealing of the bill founded on these notes was de•
layed, from the original notes having been mislaid, and
from some other circumstances that had arisen. Shortly
after this the Lord Chief Justice died, but before the bill
of exceptions bad been closed. This was a matter the
' present Court had not the power to remedy. On a
former occasion a motion on this head had been dis-
charged, but that substantial justice might be done the
rule in the present form was allowed. Having now gone
into the points raised by the present application, and
having gone over the notes of the late Lord Chief Justice,
he was of opinion that there was no evidence whatever to
fix Norman, and he considered the ruling of the late Chief
Justice on that head quite correct. On this ground, as
well as on the others stated, he considered the rule
should be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
Rule accordingly discharged.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Jan. 15.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)

THE DUKE CHARLES OF BRUNSWICK V:VALLANCE.
This was an action brought by the Duke of Brunswick
against his former solicitor for recovery of a moiety of
the costs incurred in the joint defence of the Duke and
his attorney to the action brought against them by
Barnard Gregory for the alleged conspiracy to hiss and
hoot him from the stage of Covent-garden Theatre in
February 1843.
It appeared that the defendant had obtained an order
of Mr. Justice Coleridge for the plaintiff to deliver to the
defendant the particulars of his claim in the present
action, with dates, &c., and as is usual, restraining the
Duke from proceeding with this action until such parti-
culars were given. A vague statement claiming 6001. as
the moiety, was delivered by the Duke, and the declara-
tion in the action accompanied the statement.
The present was an application to set aside the decla-
ration for irregularity, the same having been delivered
in defiance of the order of Mr. Justice Coleridge, the
statement of alleged claim being insufficient.
An order was made by Mr. Justice ERLE to set aside
the declaration for irregularity with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPCY, Jan. 15.
IN RE MAYHEW.
This bankrupt, who is well known in the literary
world for his connexion with the Era newspaper. Punch,
Ecc , &c., came up to pass his final examination, which
had been adjourned sine die for want of sufficient
accounts.

Mr. Sturgeon appeared on behalf of the bankrupt,
and Mr. Braham, a solicitor, and one of the creditors, to
oppose. The latter claimed costs for the last opposition,
and contended that the order of the Court was, that the
bankrupt should not come np again until he had filed a
new balance-sheet, and paid the costs.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, the general rule
was that the costs should be the costs of the assignees,
and the Court fees; to hold to the contrary, would be an
extremely bad precedent. It was for the assignees to
oppose and not individual creditors, and if costs were
allowed to them as a general rule, it would be a pre-
mium for oppressive opposition, and the bankrupt might
be subjected to great injustice.
Mr. BRARAM said few debts had been proved, and the
one chosen as assignee was silent.
The Learned COMM/SSIONER—I need not remind you
that there is the official assignee, whose duty it is to look '
after the estate, and it was on his report principally the
examination was adjourned. You have taken upon
yourself the duty of the assignee, besides, not being of
opinion that you are entitled to costs, I do not see why
the bankrupt should not now pass.
Mr. BRARAM pressed for an adjournment for a short
time, for the attendance of Mr. Corks.
The Learned COMMISSIONER subsequently said that
the bankrupt was entitled to 'pass, the subject of his
conduct might be inquired into when he came up for his
certificate.

The sth of February was appointed for the application
for the certificate.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Jan. 15.
HANKS V. HANKS.

The plaintiff in this action resides at Abingdon. The
defendant is a cab proprietor at Kensington. The ac-
tion was brought to recover the sum of 41. Os. 6d., the
balance of money lent. The defendant pleaded a set-off.
Mr. Hem, who appeared for the plaintiff, proceeded to
state the case, from which it appeared that the plaintiff
had been violently assaulted in consequence of hi 3 at-
tempt to obtain payment.
The Learned SECONDARY suggested that the matter
should be referred to a mutual friend, as evidence given
in a court of law between father and son tended to fur.
tiler irritate the feelings of each, and to crimination and
recrimination.

Mr. PARRY, for defendant, said there would be neither
on his part, and he had offered to submit the matter.
Mr. Hata said his client was not present, and he could
not consent.

' The case was then proceeded with. The principal
I
ever, a daughter and niece were called to prove the loan
of 101. by defendant, and that the 51. was part payment.
' evidence for the plaintiff was Stephen Hanks, his son,
who deposed to having been asked by his brother to
solicit the loan from his father. On the contrary, how-
Notes of hand were put in with a view of showing de-
fendant had received 101. from a Loan Society to lend
his father, but the dates did not tally with the alleged
occurrence, and it. was contended it was a clerical error.
The SEcoNDA.Ry said, it was a very painful exhibition,
and it Was not oven now too late to come to a private
arrangement,. If not, the jury would have to say whe-
ther there had been a loan previously, and whether the
51. was to go ;,.n
The 1 part payment.
jury
vere considering for a long time, and ulti-
mately gave. a verdict for the plaintiff.
The case lasted all the morning.
Th
.P

ro
.ortal remains of the late Air. Byng,
will be it aterred in the fair 'lvault at Wrotham, on Monday
neat. y .

The action was brought by the executors of Mr.
Crockford to recover a considerable sum of money from
the defendant, Lord Maidstone, for entrance fees and
subscriptions to the club-rooms established by the late
Mr. Crockford.

The defendant pleaded to a portion of the declaration
that the house in question was a common gaming-house.
The Lord Chief Baron, who tried the cause, not being
of that opinion, so directed the jury, and the jury, in
consequence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It was
now contended that there was evidence to show that this
was a common gaming-house within the meaning of the
Act.—Rule granted.