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

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

DAVIS V. LOWNDES.
This is the celebrated writ of right case, in which
Mr. Sergeant Manning, the other day, obtained a rule
nisi to change the attorney of the demander.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES showed cause against the rule,
contending that the objeet of the change was merely
to defeat the arrangement which had been entered into
with the sanction of the Court.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING having been heard in reply,
The COURT directed the rule to be discharged.
PATER V. BAKER.
In this case, which was an action for slander of title,
brought against a survey appointed under the provi-
sions of the Metropolitan Building Act, and in which
the verdict was for the plaintiff,
The COURT ordered the rule nisi for a new trial,
which was obtained the other day on behalf of the de-
fendant, to be made' absolute.
The circumstances have been frequently fully reported.

BANKRUPTCY,—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
LIABILITY OF PARENTS.—IN RE GARRAD.

The bankrupt, who was a surgeon at Hackney, came
up to pass his last examination.
A proof was tendered, on behalf of a tailor, for clothes
supplied to bankrupt's son. An action had been brought
against the bankrupt, and a judge's order had been made
to compel the bankrupt to admit the debt ; and, on this,
it was contended, that a proof could not be maintained.
The Learned COMMISSIONER did not consider this was
an undertaking to pay ; it was not like a verdict
obtained.

The Solicitor said it was virtually an acknowled-
went, and tantamount to a verdict, as it would have
enabled judgment to have been obtained, if the fiat had
not issued. The question was clear that a father was
liable for necessaries supplied to his son, who was living
with him.
The bankrupt said his son ordered the goods, and he
had a salary as clerk, and the bankrupt allowed him 301.
a year.
The Solicitor said, that under the poor-law, as well as
the common law, the father was obliged to support the
son. He did not think that his Honour would consti-
tute himself a judge of appeal against proceedings at
common law.
The Learned COMMISSIONER having looked at the
papers and heard evidence, said the first question was
whether the father was able, originally the credit
having been given to the son, now of age, and to whom
the bill was made out. On referring to " Chitty's Prac-
tice," he found that there must be an agreement to pay
signed by the party or some person authorised by him.
The Solicitor said the attorney of the defendant sianed
the consent. _ _ _

The Learned COMMISSIONER ultimately held that the
proof could be admitted.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, on looking at the pro-
ceedings, said that, according to them, there was 20s. in
the pound, but the official assignee said all the good
debts were bad beyond hope, and " property" depended
ou the carrying 0n,,0f a Chsncerysuit.
The bankrupt at last was allowed to pass.

MARLBRO'-STREET-(THIS DAY.)

Thomas Johnson, an elderly man, was charged with
uttering a forged accep:ance.
James Cook, engraver, 50, Frith-street, Soho-square,
said there was an account between him anti the pri-
soner, and the latter came to him on Wednesday, the
14th October, and offered him a bill for 231. 145.. pur-
porting to be accepted by Edward Breese,. 26, Hart-
street, Covent zarden. He took the bill, and gave biro
the balance over the account, 91. I Is. The bill fell due
yesterday, and was presented to Mr. Breese for pay-
ment, when he positively denied having ever atocepted it.
Edward Breese, harness plater, 26, Liart-street,
Covent-garden, paid tho bill in tiucativu was Jucvt-L ac-
cepted by him, or by his authority. He had had only
two bill transactions with the prisoner, but this was not
one of them.

The prisoner said he had had many bill transactions
with Mr. Breese, and this was one of them.
One of the detective force applied to have the prisoner
remanded for a week, as there were traces: of other
transactions which it was but too probable would turn
out to be of a similar character.—The prisoner. was re-
manded till this day week.

CLERKENWELL—(THIS DAY.)
rl
.sactGrc
es
enarwalooJdo,hon
nHtha
ell
nwhearrgeepinafcebdeina tg
he bar
aanndd
wdiistehrtrslaynit:::
before Mr.
gallery
r Si..
naad
wl ear
d' s
D- Sadler':-Wells
we lel
s,s
.and
a Theatre,lsn
police-constable Doyle, 197 G, who was on duty at the
theatre.
Dawes stated that about the middle act of tb u tragedy
of King or No King, he heard considerable noise and
confusion in the gallery, and expressions of tbze grossest
and most indecent description uttered in finch a loud
tone of voice as to be perfectly audible in eve try part of
the house. Upon entering the gallery, he round that
they were uttered by the two prisoners, who sat in the
front row, and having in vain attempted to induce them
to be quiet, he seized hold of Isaacs, who was .by far the
most violent and offensive, and succeeded in dragging
him to the back of the gallery, where they bot'b fell, and
Isaacs struck and kicked him several
,times fp> violently
• about tke head and face as to almost satur ate all the
tipper part of his dress with blood. Doyle came to his
assistance, and with considerable difficulty the y removed
the prfsoners from the gallery, and convey ed them to
the station-house.
Doyle, 107 G, confirmed the previous state' nent.
Mr. J. C. Greenwood, the lessee of the thet are, was in
attendance, and said he sought for the infiitltion of no
heavier punishment upon the prisoners than i was neces-
sary to compel orderly conduct on the ;tlart of the
audience.

Reynolds, a constable of the theatre, said, iin reply to
the magistrate, the prisoner Isaacs had been ,se mteneed to
seven days imprisonment about two years aw,o for disor-
derly conduct at the theatre ; and that last night as he
was observed to be under the influence of liqu.var, he was
cautioned upon entering the theatre by the m oney taker,
and only admitted on promising to beha .re himself
pi operly.
The Magistrate said, that from what he had heard,
he believed that there was not a theatre in lgondon con-
ducted in a more orderly, and in every w; ry, a more
creditable manner, than Sadler's Wells. It was also—
and he regretted to say it—the only theatre where the
legitimate drama found a resting place in L -)radon after.
it had been driven from all the larger tb eatres. It
such language as that used by Isaacs were per-
mitted, the beneficial effects from a th eatre con-
ducted in such a manner, must be lost, anti those em-
barking in it ruined, for no man would bring his
wife or children there at the hazard of havini rg their ears
so offended and polluted. As it appeared the at Hall was
but little to blame in comparison with his con ipanion, he
should order him to be discharged, but wit i r respect to
Isaacs, his conduct had been so disgrace: fill, that he
should send him to the I-louse of Corret ;Lion for one
month, without the alternative of a fine.
Isaacs, who boasted at the station-house a that he did
not care for the magistrate, as he could pa y double the
highest fine which could be imposed, seeirled quite be-
wildered as he was led off to the van by W tiddington.

PETITIONS ON PRIVATI?, BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Committee Room No. 22, before Mr. Exa miner SMITH,
and Mr. Assistant-Examiner FRE,I lE.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
d having
to have v beeebn
The following petitions for Bills were nil. ) posed, and
t put in, the
stencduinst:moirirdyersforwmeare dl proofsedeclared e ca
ren complied
with.
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWI kY BILL;
LOWESTOFF RAILWAY AND HARI IOUR BILL;
DRAINAGE OF CROWN LAND I BILL.
ADJOURNED PETITIONS.
The adjourned petiticns were then resi' ied.
GLASGOW, DUMFRIES, AND CARL ISLE RAIL
WAY. AND GLASGOW, PAISLEY , KILMAR-
NOCK, AND AYR RAILWAY.
The petitions against this Bill were pr. veeded with,
and some of the allegations as to trifling inaccuracies,
either in the plans and sections or books of reference,
were sustained. '4
GLASGOW, DUMFRIES, AND CARL (I:3LE, AND
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARYOCK, AND
AYR RAILWAY (No. 3).
This was the petition of the above com:l?any for leave
to bring in a Bill to make a branch from the Crawick
branch of the Glasgow, Dumfries, and Car. lisle Railway
to the main line and other small branches. The length
of the whole was forty-six miles, and the e. stimated cost
900,0001.
Tho customary formal proofs were ca ?Ipleted, but
there was a petition containing 80 allegati tons against
the plans, &c., the hearing of which was at tjourncd till
Monday.
(Committee Room No. 23, before Mr. Exan timer T. E.
MAY and Mr. Assistant-Examiner Gurtx.v, IL.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
The following petitions for Bills being unopposed, the
customary lbrmal proofs were put in, and the 51 sanding
orders declared to have been complied with :
EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY BILL ;
BIRKENHEAD AND HERCULANEUM DO CRS;
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND Lint JLN-
SHIRE RAILWAY;
BIRKENHEAD DIVROVEMENT BILL

OPPOSED LIST.
GLASGOW DUMFRIES, AND CARLILSE
RAILWAY, and
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND

AYR RAILWAY—(No. 2).
This:was the p. tition of the above companies for leave
to bring in a Bill to make certain extensions mad branches.
extending to upwards of 36 miles of railway. The esti-
mated cost was 660,000/., and the engineer Mr. John
Miller.

The customary formal proofs having been put in,
Mr. GRAHAM opposed the petition on behalf of a Mr.
Weemys, who complained of inaccuracy and defects in
the plans, sections, and books of references. Some of
the allegations were sustained in a qualified form, and
the case closed.