The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-16 00:00:00

EDWARDS V. FREENE AND ANOTHER.

In this cue, which was tried before Mr. Justice Wight-
man at the last Cornwall Assizes, and in which a verdict
was had for the plaintiff, damages 371., Mr. Crowder
applied to the Court for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside on the ground of its being
against evidence. The question in the case was whether
there was a partnership between the defendant Freen and his
brother at the time the goods were sold to him. The evi-
dence was of a very uncertain nature, and a jury impan-
ntlled on the following day to try another action against
the same defendants, found a verdict the other way.
Mr. Justice Wig htman said there were discrepancies
in the evidence of the two principal witnesses on the se-
cond trial.

The COURT granted the rule.
Lord DENMAN, after going through the Bar, and finding
that none of the Learned Counsel present had any motions
to make, observed that be had upwards of forty
enlarged rules lying before him, and the Court was
in hopes that some of them would be ready for argument.
They should certainly go to the new trial paper on the
following day as a matter of course, and it might as well
be then stated as a notice from the Court that they should
take motions every day except those fixed for the other
papers (namely, the Special and Crown paper days), and
if no motions came before them they should immediately
proceed to the new trial paper.

BAIL COURT, APRIL 15.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.
His Lordship did not take his seat upon the bench until
nearly two o'clock, and after hearing one or two motions
of course, the Court rose at a quarter after two.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL 15.
The Lord Chief Justice, Justices Bosanquet, Coltman,
and Erskine came into Court at half-past one o'clock.
Their Lordships took the New Trial paper.
FELBY V. LOCKHART.

The parties in this case are both wino and spirit mer-
chants. The plaintiff being indebted to the defendant
in the year 1839, gave him two acceptances in 731. each,
payable at two and four months ; hut having the misfor-
tune to break his leg, he was unable to provide for the first
of these bills, and the defendant, upon receiving two other
acceptances of longer dates, undertook to provide for these.
The defendant, however, became bankrupt in the mean
time, and the plaintiff had to pay for all the bills and the
costs that were incurred through his want of preparation.
Under these circumstances he brought this action of as.
sumpsit, and the defendant not denying the facts pleaded his
bankruptcy. A verdict, however, was given for the plain.
tiff, 162/., being the costs incurred by the defendant's
neglect to take up the first bills according to his guarantee.
The Chief JUSTICE at the trial gave leave to move for a
new trial.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL now obtained a rule nisi ac-
cordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, APRIL 15.

The Chief Baron, Barons Park, Alderson, and Rolfe
took their scats upon the Bench at balf•past one o'clock.

PAGE V. JARVIS.

Mr. WIIATFLEY, when this case was called on from the
new trial paper, said that the brief of Mr. Richards, who
had been instructed in the case, had been but just put into
his hands. He was therefore not prepared to move.
Lord ABINGER-Where is Mr. Richards?
Mr. WHATELEY-1 am sorry to say, my Lord, he is
confined by illness.

Lord A.IITNGER—What is the matter with him ?
Mr. WitATELEv—My Lord, he has caught the SCAR-
LET fever,—( Great laughter.)
Lord. ABINGER (smiling)-011, indeed.
Mr. WHATELEY-BUt I am happy to assure you Lord-
ship and the Bar that it is a very mild attick.—(Great
IP.ughter.) _ _

The case was then ordered to stand over.
TURTLE V. WALLIS.

This was an action for a breach of an agreement under
which the defendant undertook to stipple-etch a life-likeness
of the Rev. Dr. Dillon, at a price to be named by the
defendant, the plaintiff undertaking to procure a sitting
from the Rev. Doctor, the work to be sent home in three
weeks. The Lord Chief Baron nonsuited the plaintiff at
the trial, on the ground that the agreement was void, be-
cause of the vagueness of the price.
Mr. PLATT now contended that the nonsuit was right, not
only on that ground, but also because the agreement
proved was different from that in the record. In the latter
there was not a word about the sitting of Dr. Dillon.
Mr. CROWDER, in support of his rule for a new trial,
contended that the latter point was not made at the trial
and even were it so, there was nothing to show ':sat,
it was any part of the contract—it might have
been a mere promise on the part of '',.'urtle to
assist his friend Mr. Wallis. Wi'2n respect to
the first, point, the defendant had sent home the
etchi;ig, but not in time; however, he had brought his
ailtion and had actually got 261. ss. for his labour. He
thought the whole question ',vas one for the consideration
of the Jury.
The COCRT were of opinion that the rule ought to be
discharged upon tlie latter ground. They were clearly of
opinion that the sitting of Dr. Dillon formed a part, and
an essential part of the agreement.--Rule discharged.