The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 15.

(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court did not sit till half-past one o'clock, in
consequence of the Judges and the Queen's Counsel
having breakfasted with the Lord Chancellor at his pri-
vate residence, from which they afterwards w.nt in pro-
cession to Westminster Hall.

HENNIKER V. JONES.
This case was tried at the late Monmouth assizes,
before Mr. Baron Platt and a special jury, when a ver•
diet was returned for the defendant on the second issue.
Mr. WHiTELY now moved for a rule nisi, calling on
the defendant to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside and entered for the plaintiff with damages 70/.
It appeared that this action was one of assumpsit on a
contract, by which the defendant engaged to deliver to
the plaintiff, at Newport, from 150 to 200 sacks of first
flour from Baltimore, in Ireland, at 375. 3d. a sack.
Their LORDSHIPS were of opinion that sufficient
grounds had not been shown why they should grant a
rule in the terms moved for—that the verdict should be
set aside—but would grant it for a nonsuit.
The remainder of the day was occupied with motions
of no public interest.

SECONDARIES COURT, Aprills.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
SMITH V. WILSON AND OTHERS.
This was an inquiry to assess damage for trespass and
illegal distraint. The plaintiff is a wadding manufacturer
in Minto-street, Long-lane, Bermondsey. The defend-
ant, Wilson, was the landlord of the premises occupied
by the plaintiff.
Sergeant WILKINS stated the case, whereby it ap-
peared that the plaintiff had laid out between eight and
nine hnndred pounds on improvements of the premises,
but a dispute arising, Wilson put in a distress for 1251.
for rent of a portion of the premises, and all the property
was seized and sold for 9/. by the condemning brokers,
who were not licensed auctioneers.
Smith. father of the plaintiff, was called, and
proved that he took the premises, on an agreement for a
lease, in November, 1840. and then laid out 700/. or
800/. on the premises, which he afterwards let to his son.
When the goods were taken away witnesses took an in-
ventory, and valued them at 701. Witness said he would
buy them at the condemned price, but the broker, Nix
(one of the defendants), said he should not say what it
was, and it was no use attending the sale, for there
would be brokers to run the price up.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHRIES—Had not paid
any rent to Wilson, but it was deposited with a Mr.
King, to be paid to Wilson when he executed a lease,
but the attorneys could not agree upon the covenants.
King was in the habit of discounting for witness, and
deducted the amount for the rent. King had advanced
700/. on a mortgage of the machinery. Witness had
given up the business and machinery to his son, but
there was no deed executed. Did not claim the pro-
perty as his own. Became bankrupt in 1844, and King
was dead. There had been five other distresses put in,
and an action had been brought and a verdict given
against King, who was also bankrupt before he died.
Other witnesses were called, who proved that the busi-
ness done at the time of the seizure was 4,000/. or 5,000/.
a year, and the net profit 1,000/.
Mr. HUMPHRIES addressed the jury for the defendants,
and said that there could be no question that the rent
was due, but in consequence of a technical point no de-
fence could be made—it would be seen that the agree-
ment for the lease extended to one portion of the pro-
perty, and that connected with the other was the right
to use a flue which was called in law an " incorporeal
heriditament," which would not pass under the agree-
ment, but required a proper deed, duly signed and
sealed. He considered, however, that the justice of the
case would be met by very small damages, and that the
plaintiff was not entitled to anything for the loss of
premises which he was holding without the payment of
rent.
The SECONDARY having summed up,
The jury asked for the inventory, and then gave a
verdict for 251., for the furniture taken, and One
Farthing damages.

ROLL'S COURT, April 15.
This being the first day of term, Lord LANGDALE sat
at Westminster at half-past one o'clock.
TAYLOR V. WILD.
Mr. KINDERSLEY applied for an order for the post-
ponement of the hearing of this case. This cause
came on originally as an exception to the Master's
report. A bill had been filed by the plaintiff against
the husband's trustees for the purpose of obtain-
ing the benefit of certain proceedings that had taken
place. His Lordship had made an order overruling
the Master's decision. In the meantime an application
was made that the bill might be taken pro confesso, and
his Lordship ordered the cause to stand over till the
result of that application should be known. That bill
had been dismissed with costs, and notice of motion had
been given by the defendant Wild.
There being no objection on the other side, the order
was granted.
There were several other motions to the same effect,
none of which possessed any public interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Aprills.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court did not sit till half-past one o'clock, at
which time there was a very full muster of the learned
gentlemen who usually practice in this Court.
WRIGHT V. BA SKERTILLE.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved for a rule to show cause
why a verdict obtained in this case, tried before Mr.
Justice Erie in the sittings after last term, should not be
set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a verdict given, to
the defendant on the two issues. In the trial a verdict
had been given for the plaintiff—damages, 403. The
action was brought on the allegation of a nuisance created
by the defendant by smoke, generated through certain
chimneys which he had erected. The present applica-
tion for a rule was made by consent, arising out of cer-
tain objections taken at the close of the trial. The de-
fendant sought the reversal of the verdict on three
grounds—first, that the defendant did not light the fires
that gave out the offensive smoke; second, that the de•
fendant at the time was not possessed of the property of
which complaint was made, having demised it to other
parties ; and third, that the smoke arose from chimneys
of low houses, contiguous to the dwelling house of the
plaintiff, and not from any obnoxious trade or workshop;
thejefore that he had the right to the use of the atmos-
phere for the purpo,e of carrying off his smoke in
common with his neighbours.—Rule to show cause
granted.