The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-26 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-{THIS DAY.)

FEARN V. THE EARL OF MEXBOROUGH.
This was an action brought to recover, from the Earl
of Mexborough, 500!. ou a bill of exchange.
Evidence having been briefly taken, a verdict was
given to the plaintiff for the amount.
IN RE MRS. SHUTTLEWORTH.
Sir JOHN BAYLEY was heard shortly to-day against
the rule obtained by Mr. O'Brien on Tuesday, to show
cause for issuing a writ of habeas corpus, ordering Dr.
Millengan, of Chelsea, to bring up the body of Martha
Eliza Shuttleworth, an alleged lunatic. The rule was
moved for on affidavit, denying the lunacy, and the ar-
gument, as far as it went, wa,s mainly directed to this
question. The further hearing of the case was ad-
journed till Monday afternoon next, at four o'clock.
We reserve the details till the argument is closed.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
DEPOSITS OF SHARES—BELLIN V. CREFT.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
161. 10s. for money received for and on account of the
plaintiff, on the sate of some shares in the Derby, Ut-
toxeter, and Stafford Railway Company.
An application was made for the postponement of the
cause for a short time, for‘the attendance of Mr. Sergeant
Chadwick Jones, who had been retained for the de-
fendant, and had the documents necessary for the defence;
the plaintiff's attorney, however, opposed, and
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said that he was bound
to take the case, as it was in rotation. The brief only
having been delivered over night, and on the last day of
term, it was hardly to be expected the Learned Counsel
could attend.

The case was then proceeded with.
The plaintiff's attorney stated the: case. The plain-
tiff was indebted in May last to the defendant in the
sum of 1001., and gave him 75 shares in the Derby, Ut-
toxeter, and Stafford Railway Company, which he was
to sell, and repay himself the 1001., and hand over the
difference. The shares had been sold for 1261. 17s. 6d.
Defendant paid over 121., and the balance was now
sought to be recovered.

Mr. Edward Daniel Chattaway was called, and proved
that in May last he was present at the Hall of Com-
merce when the plaintiff and defendant were present.
Defendant said that he had sold the shares in two lots,
40 in one, and 35 in the other, and they fetched 345. and
345. 6d. per share. Defendant paid 121., and said that if
plaintiff would call at the office he would make out the
account and hard over the balance.

The defendant's attorney said that he was placed in
an awkward position by not having the papers, but
proceeded to cross-examine the witness. Plaintiff is an
East India agent. Witness had been secretary to the
company, which was now defunct. It certainly was not
a " bubble," but there was no railroad. The offices of
the company had been at No. 62, Moorgate-street. De-
fendant said he bad sold the shares, and the inference
was that he had received the money; he distinctly said
that he would make out the account. Witness was not
acquainted with the practice of the share market as to
the sale of shares, or what commission was paid. Wit-
ness had'bought and sold shares, and had paid 6d. on
each share. Never knew that as much as Is. 3d. per
share was charged, but the commission varied according
to the value of the shares.
The defendant's attorney then proceeded to address
the jury, and put in a memorandum, to the effect that the
plaintiff had made a deposit of the shares as a security
for 1001. advanced, and if the amount was not repaid
within 14 days, the defendant was to be at liberty to sell
the same and apply the proceeds to liquidating his claim.
An objection was taken that it was an agreement re-
quiring a stamp, and it was therefore rejected as evidence.
The defendant's attorney then contended that there
was no evidence as to what the shares were, or how
much they had rosily fetched, and that the payment of
the 121. was a settlement of the account.
A Mr. Bedford was called to show that the shares did
not fetch more than 1/. 12s. or 11. 12s. 6d., but he could
only speak to the hest of his recollection.
The Learned LTrinf.a SiII:RIFF said, if the first wit-
ness was to be di retried en—and he saw ric reason to
doubt his eviticave—thv ease v,as inuch, out ~f a prolui,i,
to pay some balance alter the payment of the 121. As
to the amount, it should be remarked, that in charging
the prices at 345. and 345. 6d., as the witness could not
remember which lot was sold at the larger sum, the
plaintiff charged it on the smallest lot.