The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-03 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FER. 2

. _
( Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Air. Justice COLTMAN and a
Common Jury.)
lIA RT V. RUSSELL.

The parties in this action were proprietors of the well-known
gambling house called the Berkeley Club, in Piccadilly. The
plaintiff claimed 200/., tor money lent, and 41. lOs for goods
delivered. In support of the claim for 2001. witnesses were
called, who swore that they heard the defendant state that he
had borrowed so much from the plaintiff, but would never pay
him, because he had blabbed, and subjected him to penalties
for keeping the club.. Proof was also given •f the delivery of
the goods, and the Jury found for the plaintiff for their amount
(41. 10s.) only.

BAIL COURT, FEB. 2.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS
and a Middlesex Common Jury.)
EWING . OSBALDES'iON.

This was a qui tam aetton brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, tle.crelebrated actor, to recover
certain penalties to which the defendant was liable, for
having performed stage plays and other dramatic per-
formances-in a place not properly licence(' for such a
purpose. _
_lt appeared from the evidence that the de-
fendant -lied -been the manager at the Sadler's Wells
theatre in :the year. 1836, and that during that time he
had pertorined Macbeth and various other characters,
but thore was no evidence to show that he had received
a ealary for such services, although it did appear that
other actors had been paid by the treasurer.
°:-The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
1-.' -The Attorney-General conducted the case for the
prosecution, and Mr. Kelly appeared for the defendant.

COURT OF QUEL.N'S BENCH, FEB. 2.
LEWIS V. REILLY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill cf
exchange for 301., brought by the plaintiff against
Thomas Watson and Patrick Reilly, who were sur-
geons, carrying on business in partnership at Kenning-
ton-cross. The defendant Watson suffered judgment
to go by default, and the defendant Reilly pleaded;
first, that he did not make the bill ; second, that he and
Watson were apothecaries and surgeons in partner-
ship, and that neither of them was authorised
to accept any bills without the knowledge and
consent of the wlier ; third, that the defendant Watson
:nade the bill without the knowledge of defendant
Reilly,.and through fraud, of which plaintiff had notice.
The fourth plea was to the sam3 effect, and the fifth
was that the partnership was dissolved at the time the
bill was endorsed by Watson, of which the plaintiff had
knowledge and notice. It appeared that the bill
Sad been regularly drawn by Watson in the name of
the firm, and before it became due the partnership was
dissolved. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
on all the counts except the fifth. A rule for a new
trial, or to show cause why judgment should not be en-
tered for the plaintiff non obstante veredicto was subse-
quently obtained, and
Mr. BUSBY now appeared to show caus3 against the
rule. The issue which had been found in favour of the
defendants was, he contended, a material issue. Unless
it were shown that Reilly was cognizant of the accep-
tance of the bill, he could not be held to be legally liable.
The Learned Counsel referred to the case of " Sheriff
v. Wilkes," in ht. East, " Ridley v. Taylor," and other
authorities in support of his argument.
Mr. HUMPHREYS was heard in support of the rule.
The COURT was of opinion that they were doing no
violence to languag.l if they believed from the evidence
before them that the bill had been drawn during
the existence of the partnership. There was nothing
to show that the plaintiff had any notice of the dissolu-
tion of the partnership, and therefore the rule must be
made absolute.