The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-22 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DA'Y
(Sittings in Banco.)
DOE DEM RUSSEL V. LAMBETH.

This was an actio.i in ejectment, brought by the Cor-
poration of London to recover possession of certain land
and premises at Hampstead, occupied by a company,
called the Harap-tend Water Company. The corpora-
tion had leased the land to the company some years ego,
and the latter not having complied with the terms of
the lease it was at an end. Th'e defendant was the sur-
viving trustee of the company.
Mr. ASHLEY applied for leave to enter up jugdment
against the casual ejector, the defendant having allowed
interlocutory judgment to pass by default.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Take a rule to show cause.

NORTON V. EDGELY.
This was an action of assumpsit brought to r,,cover
2681. 55., the amount of a bill of exchange, drawn by de-
fendant upon a Wm. Memos, and endorsed by the for-
mer, and paid to Joseph Raleigh and Co., of Manchester.
who gat the same discounted by Joseph Norton, the
plaintiff. The action was tried at the spring assizes
held in York, before Mr. Justice Cresswell, when the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on some of the
'issues, and for the defendant on other:. In Michaelmas
term following, Mr. Martin, for the plaintiff, obtained a
rule nisi to show cause why a new trial should
not be had, on the ground that certain material
evidence had been rejected on the trial, which, if it had
been received, the plaintiff would have obtained a com-
plete verdict.
Mr. WATSON now appeared against the rule, and con-
tended that it ought to be discharged. The Learned
Counsel stated the facts of the case at some length.
It appeared that the bill was an accommoda-
tion bill in favour of Raleigh, who was at the
time the bill was given a partner of the
plaintiff's in a house in Nottingham. The question then
was, whether there was a sufficient consideration be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant to enable the former
to recover from the latter, as endorser, the amount of
the bill. To settle that point, a declaration of Raleigh,
who soon after getting the bill discounted became
a bankrupt and afterwards emigrated to New South
\Vales was rej, cted at the trial ; it was requested by the
plaintiff to have a new trial at the Spring Assizes at
York in 1846, where the evidence of Raleigh would be
put in under a commission sent to New South Wales, for
the purpose of obtaining it. The evidence of Raleigh, it
was said, would prove the consideration, and show that
the defendant was a debtor unto the plaintiff. Now
he, the Learned Counsel, denied this, and also
contended that the judge was right in rejecting the de-
claration of Raleie,h, as he was not a competent witness
in the cause, being an interested party.
Mr. MARTIN contended that the rule ought to be
made absolute, on the ground that the evidence of
Raleigh was receivable and important to enable a jury
propsrly to decide the ease.
The COURT took time to consider the case.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
Their Lordships were engaged all the day in hearing
registration appeals, but none of the cases argued in-
volved anything beyond disputes about technical corn-
plian !es with the statute, and of course of little or no
interest except to the parties concerned.