The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-20 00:00:00

ELLIS V. ABRAHAMS.

This was a case of malicious prosecution for perjury, arising
Out of a sale of 50,000 Tourquoise stones, the facts of which
have already been before the public in no fewer than three
trials. The present motion was for a rule for a new trial, on
the grounds of rejection of evideuce, and excessive damages
at the last trial, which took place at Guildhall last term.
Judgment deferred.
SIR FREDERICK ROE V. TUE MARQUIS OF WESTMEATH.
In this case it appeared that Lady Westmeath built upa
wall at the rear of her house, in Piccadilly, by which some
of the windows in Sir Frederick Roe's house were darkened.
The jury fohnd for the plaintiff, and the Solicitor-General I
now sought for a rule thr a new trial, on the ground of mis-
direction. In his argument, he !mid Chat u person had a rig ht
to build up a wall, or I,e.g :ten his house, it it should be
the side or front of a street, even though that might ha'.e
the effect of darkening the light of an opposite house. Ile
said this was the first caste 01 the sort that had occurred ; but
he contended that it .vc.utti ue amatter f great public incon-
venience, if in A large town, v ith narrow streets, a person
hiving a house in that street, could not he
ighten it, even
though the opposite house might be damaged thereby.
JUdgraiesif. d. 2 errs 1.

B COURT. April 18.
(Sittings Nisi Prius before Mr. JUStiCe:COLERIDGE.)
The causes disposed of in this Court to-day possessed no
features of rry public interest.

COURT OF 0 4,;10.11 PLEAS, AprillB.
(Sittings in Banco.)
e.i
TouTAL v. JOHNSTON.
Mr. Serg,.ant CtIANNEL moved for a rule to show cause
why a verdict in this case should not he set aside, and a neW
trial granted on the ground of misdirection. The action was
braight by Mr. Tootal, a broker, of Manchester, to recover
the price of fifty shares in the Huddersfield and Sheffield
Junction Railway from the defendant, who, it was alleged,
bad instrurtea the plaintiff to make the purcliase. The trial
took place a. last Ltverpol assizes, before Mr. Justice
et_ • Coteridge, ar cl a verdict was given for 4t51.
Rule to show cause granted.
FITCH V. CUTTS.
Sc rg,P.lO t SHEA movet for a rule to show cause why a
verdict ir. his case should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted no the ground of misdirection, or verdict against
evidence. The action arose out of a sale of wines and other
effect,. at Rower Hall, near Saffron-Weldon, stated to be the
prevrty of a Mr. Steven?, and under Vie order of his exe.
eutore. TLe defem lan t attended the sale and made.a,.pur-
chae of some wines on the faith of tba advertisenient 'eta'
printed eatategue, which set forth that the sale would take.:
places the residence of Mr. Stevens, " by order of his exe
cutors," but subsequently he discovered that the wine was
not. the property of Mr. Stevens, and he brought an
action against Mr. Fitch to recover on the plea of
fraud. A verdict was given to the plaintiff, on the
direction of the Judge who tried the case (Mr. Baron
Aldeison), who left, as the main point for the considera-
tion of the jury, whether fair notice had been given.
at the sale that some of the wine was the property of Mr
Stevens and some was not. Evidence being given to the
effect that some statement to that effect had been made, and
it also being maintained that the advertisement did not state
the property to be sold was that of Mr. Stevens, the state-
ment only being that the sale would take place at the ret,i-
deuce of the deceased,
The COURT took time to consider.
COULTHAS V. THE RSV. DR. BOWES.—CRIX cox.
Mr. Sergeant WILDX moved for a rule for a new trial in
this case, tried at the last Bedford assizes before Mr. Baron
Parke, and a verdict given to trio plaintiff, damages
2004 The action wee brought by the *errant sgeinetkis

master, Coulthas being the gamekeeper of Dr. Bowes, the
defendant, and it was for criminal conversation with the
wife of plaintiff. The rule was now sought on the ground
of the verdict being against evidence. The defendant was
70 years of age, and the wife of the defendant, who officiated
as housekeeper, was 58. The plaintiff, who was 60 years of
age. had been in the service of the defendant for 35 years.
During that time a considerable intimacy sprung up and the
defendant and his wife were considered as part of plaintiff's
family. About five years ago Dr. Bowes had had a very
severe attack of illness, a nervous complaint, during which
he had been nursed by the plaintiff's wife, which still
brought her into more immediate contact with the
defendant then before. Subsequent to this she had
been in daily waiting on him, and as he bad an affection in
one of his feet, she had to lace and unlace his boot morning
and night, and otherwise to attend upon his person. It was
during the latter period that the alleged adultery took place.
The Learned Gentleman then recapitulated the evidence
adduced on the trial in support of the charge of adult cry,
which set forth that two acts of criminal conversation
had been witnessed in one day by two persons, the
evidence of whom was believed to be somewhat sup-
ported by several letters of the defendant preduced on the
trial. The witnesses called were parties well known
to be on ill terms with the defendant and the
plaintiff's :wife, while, in answer to that, there were
the whole servants of the establishment called, who proved
that no improper familiarity had ever been witnessed, and
this was corroborated by the principal relations of the de-
fendant who visited there. With respect to the direct acts of
adultery alleged to have taken place on the 29th of November,
the Learned Gentleman said it was proved that the plaintiff
went to hed that night at ten o'clock, the hour at which the
act of adultery was said to have been seen by two witnesses
appointed to watch by the plaintiff: Next day he went to
church without making reference to this fact, and he came
home at night the worse for liquor, and wished to sleep with
his wife, but she resisted. He then got into a violent passion,
and upbraided her with being a w-; on which, when
one of the servants to whom he addressed himself reproached
him with using such language, be said he had it from two
parties, not the Smiths; no reference being made to them,
or the night before. The two parties whom he gave as his
authority, when spoken to, denied all knowledge of any-
thing of the kind. In fact, the adultery alleged to have
been seen in the study on the 29th was got up, after the
wife went home to her mother at Wakefield, to suit a parti-
cular purpose. It was also proved, in answer, that the
blinds bad been put down by the servants, so that it would
have been impossible to see anything of the kind from
the outside. The same answer applied to the acts of
adultery said to have taken place in the bed-room at a
later hour the same evening, and watched, it was said, bythe
same parties. Considering the al,es of the parties charged,
the proceedings et the plaintiff on the nights referred to,
the discrepaney in the evidence pro and con, with the fact
that Dr. Bowes had solemnly declared on affidavit that he
never had had any criminal conversation with the de-
fendant's wife, he trusted their Lordships would grant the
application.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL intimated, that they would
confer with the Judge who tried the case before answering
the application.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 18.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WHALLEY r. DAVISON.
Mr. BAINES in this case moved, on the part of the plaintiff,
for a rule nisi, in order that the verdict which had been ob-
tained at the late assizes at York, before Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge, should be set aside, and entered fur plaintiff, with suz:i
damages as the Court might allow. The action was one for
the recovery of the amount of shares in the Leeds and Thirsk
Railway, which had been bargained for and sold by the
plaintiff to defendant. The only plea was non-asaumpsit.
Thy defence set up by the defendant at the trial was, that
he was only acting as an agent, that the shares were not
purchased on his own account, and that therefore he was
not liable. On the 27th of September last the applica-
tion was made by defendant for one hundred shares
in the Leeds and Thirsk Railway for the account of the
15th October following. On the 2d October following the
receipt of the note the plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant,
to know who the person was for whom the shares were.
The defendant, in reply to that, declined to give the name of
the party who had instructed him to give the order, but said
he would take the risk upon himself, and gave the name of
his father as the purchaser, and engaged to pay the cost of
the transfer. Another letter was written by plaintiff on the
11th October, demanding the name of the purchaser. To
that letter no answer whatever was returned. The :sth of
October came, the day on which the purchase was to be
completed, but it was not till ten days after, on the 25th
October, that the actual purchaser was given, when the de-
fendant gave the name of Frederick Tuttall. On inquiring
of Mr. Tuttall, the plaintiff ascertained that the defendant
had sent a note to Mr. Tuttall very different from the sold
note to plaintiffs. The 15th of October was named as the
day for the account with plaintiff, but no time at all was
specified in the note by defendant to Mr. Tuttall. On the
11th of November a witness was called at the trial, whe
proved that he went along with plaintiff to defendant, when
the latter offered to pay for the shares of plaintiff. He then
left the shares with him, which the plaintiff did not think
proper to do. Under these circumstances the Learned
Counsel submitted that the defendant had made him
self liable for the shares; first, because he refused
to give the name of the actual buyer, though repeatedly re-
quired to do so. In proof of which he quoted Justice Story
on agency, sections 267 and 288. where it is sta:ed distinctly
that where the agent refuses to disclose the name of the
principal for whom be professes to act, he has a right to be
treated as the principal himself. The present case was
exactly analagous, as the defendant refused to give the name
of the principal, though repeatedly called upon to do so; and
secondly, by his letter 01 the 2d of October he offered to
take the responsibility on himself, and did not give any
rame till ten days afterwards, on the 15th of October. the
day on which the account was to be finally settled, and when
plaintiff could have no claim whatever on Tuttall. Under
these circumstances, he submitted that the Court could have
no objection to his motion.
Rule granted.
The remainder of the dal- was occupied in hearing motions.
(Sittings at Nisi Prtus, b fore Mr. Baron ALDERSON
and Comtnon Juries.)
WOODROFFE V. 3IARNHAM.

This was an action of trespass to recover compeosati,q2
in damages for false imprisonment. The defendant put
,everal pleas on the record.
Mr. Jarvis. with whom wa Mr. Hoggins, conducted
the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Gray
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. JERVIS, in stating the case, said that this was an
action brought by the plaintiff, who carried on the busi-
ness of clothier and hatter, whilst the defendant, who
had been extensively engaged in the coal trade, was a

retir.d geoth-man of fortune. It would appoar that the
plaintiff had been a debtor of the defendant, and

that there was the small amount of about 11. 12s
remaining unpaid two years since, when the latter
sued him in the County Court in King gate street,
Holborn, for debt and costs, together making
21. Is. lid. Upon the plaintiff appearing at that
Court, an arrangement was made by which the demand
was to be liquidated by instalments These payments
were duly made until the total had been reduced to 18,
30, which ought strictly to have been paid off by the
loth May, 1844. That not having been done, on th
28th of May an execution was. issued from the Court fur
IL Is. 70., including th cost of the warrant, 31. 4d.
This warrant was obtained at about eleven o'clock on
the morning of the 23;h of May, but it happened that
at twenty minutes beibre nine o'clock of that day the
plaintiff called and paid the 18s. 3id. to the sister of the
collector or agent of the defendant. Tne debt and all
the costs bad thus been paid, but in consequence of the
warrant on the execution having been obtained, there
was the cost of that proceeding, 3s. 4d., still unsatisfied.
Accordingly the plaintiff was taken in execution on the
29th, the following day, fur that sum. He was arrested
at Paddington, and was in custody about two hours,
when, by the advice of his solicitor, he paid the 3s. 4d. to
the other under protest, whereupon he was released.
The jury, no donbt, had heard much about cheap law,
and the outcry which had been constantly raised fur
the general establishment of county courts, as the
means by which that cheap law was to be obtained.
Let him beseech the jury, shhlil they have any peti-
tion brought to them for their signature, to bear in
mind this case. And if there were an illustradon or
the system which would more clearly be•ir out what
cheap law was, it would be found in Mr. Dickens's
" Pickwick," as practised in the office of Dubson and
Fogg. It was there related that a then poor, but honest
person, ground down to the lowest grade of poverty. had
been sued by that celebrated firm fur a pa try sum.
After having parted with every article of necessary or
comfort of life, the poor debtor had gone to Dobson and
Fogg's office with just sufficient money to cover the ex-
isting demand, inclusive of costs, but upon arriving
there alai tendering the amoun', he was, after a few
minutes of delay and considerati.tn, infortne that, de-
vlaretion had been filed, and that there was a further
charge for costs in consequence. The poor debtor was
,Lrrested, and afterwards the head of the office told the
clerk to go and file the declaration, observing th it the
imprisonment would do the debtor good, for he had been
a wild anal extravagant man in his early days. Such
was one of the benefits of cheap law, in which branch of
:he profession few if any men practised who ware under
the least responsibility. Following up this rule of cheap
law practice, the agent of the deieada.nt, althongh the
money had been paid into the hands of his sister, took
out execution for the 3s. 43., and it was for the arrest
:or that amount that compensation was now sought.
Brown, the clerk of the County Court, was then
examined, and proved that the warrant had been taken
out on the 98,11 of May, and given to the officer for
executi.in on the following day ; but that it was most
probable not until eleven o'clock on the day that it had
been taken Out, because upon a reference to the onolcs
he found out there had been twenty-tive others taken
out before it.

By Mr. Baron ALDERsox—He saw that there had
been fifty-four other executions entered ash takenth out on
that day, and eighty-four in that week.
yha
ert rna akntel
IttnieTe course
of the year there had been about 5,000 taken oebuet,enand
all for small sums. Some time since there had
alteration in the law, and then the business of the court
had very considerably diminished, bat upon a subse.
quent alteration, which renewed the power of arrest to
the Court, it had again increased.
Mr. JERVIS—Yes, my Lord, that is so ; when the
power of arrest was abolished all the offic, re and clerks
of these courts received a nandsome compensation, and
since another Bill has been brought in restoring the
power of arrest, and the system is now being carried
out more extensively than ever.
w Examination by the COURT resumed—Before the
arrant was sent out of the office some one, as the re-
presentative of the defendant, the then plaintiff, came,
tdataaekbdet.nbaynindhis instructions he stru,:k out the whole of the
execution;costs for
Eeßvseo
N_la,wr
against him the cost thusofntthut
eventually
the amount of the claim
whichblr. Baronsum haAwLans
Witness—. Just
would have been
, that if the
warrant had not been taken out,
no debt against the plaintiff ? so, my
Lord.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—That is what has struck me
upon your evidence. Gentlemen of the Jury, it i
most serious thing that eve,' man in London shouldsbae
liable to such a course of proceedinz as this.
Examination resumed—When the application was
truth is, 3s.
4d"
for
made for the warrant, the debt remaining due was I/.
12s. 11d. ; then to that was added 55.. 4d. for costs, and

also the 3s. 4fi. for the warrinr, making to.,:ethi?r the
sum of 21. ls. 7id. Then he had struck off 11. as having
been paid, leaving a balance of 11.1 71c1. The plain-

tiff, however, before the execution of the warrant, paid
18s. 3id., leaving the cost of the warrant, 3s. 4d., and
for that he was arrested.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Then it would be to the ad-
vantage of the officers of the Court that the warrant
should be taken out.? Witness—No doubt it would, fur
in truth they have nothing else to live upon.
Other witnesses were then called, who proved the
payment of the money at least twenty minutes before
nine o'clock on the morning on which the execution of
the warrant was applied for at eleven o'clock. It was
also proved in cross-examination that the collector, the
defendant's agent, who is now dead, was not aware of
the payment of the money at the time of his obtaining
the execution.

Steely, the officer, who had executed the warrant,
stated that when the defendant objected to pay the 3s. 4d.
he had told him that if he would make an application to
the Court the sum would be returned to him if his awe-
ment were correct. The plaintiff, however, took him to
his solicitors, by whose advice he paid the sum under
protest.
Mr. lltutramr, on behalf of the defendant, submitted
that this proceeding had arisen out of an nnintentional
mistake on the part of a man who had long since died,
who had acted as the agent of the defendant. The latter
had had no cognizance of any part of the proceedings.
The question of the jury would be, whether. at the time
that the auent had quitt,d his home, he had done so with
the intention of issuing the warrant of execution.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that the evidence went to
prove that be had not.
Mr. II UMFRE Y agreed with all the remarks his Learned
Friend had made a; to the evil arising out of the prac-
tice of these • mall courts, but then he was inclined to
be of opinion that neither his Learned Friend nor him-
self should complain of them, seeing that through one
of their mal- practices the present case, although 3s. 4d.
was the real origin of the proceeding, had come into
their hands.—(Laughter.) They could not practice in
the small court, and therefore these evils arose; where-
upon, in order to correct them, the parti ,s were com-
p-11,d to appell to that Court, and the personal aid of
his Learned Friend and himself.—(Renewed laughter.)
It was a matter for regret, however, that this action
-hould have been brought, because its cost, in any way,
must be fifty or sixty times the 3s. 4d. He could not
help regarting the case as an attorney's action.
Only see what a fine bill of costs there would be. It
would open thus:—" To advising you whether or not
you should pay the 3s. 4d., under protest, 6s. ad.
There was double the sum in dispute."—(Laughter.)
Then that would be thus followed up—" To giving
deeper and longer consideration to the matter, and ad-
vising you to pay the 3s. 4.1., under protest 13s. 4d."
There went a pound at or.ce--(Continued laughter)—
" Upon hearing that you would receive back the money
if you applied at the County Court in a week, and on
consideration advising you not to make the application
at that court 13s. 4d.;" and then to advising you to
bring the present action in the Court of Exchequer
13s. 4d."—(Roars of laughter)—and so on. That would
be the result of the proceeding, and deeply was it to be
lamented that such things were. As far as the de
fondant was concerned, he knew nothing about the
affair. It was quite clear that a mistake had been
made, and theret;ire he submitted that the smallest of
deranges would be an ample compensation.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON to d the jury the plaintiff any
way was entitled to the 3s. 4.1., and then they must sav
what sum he ought to have for the mistake that had
been made.

The jury, after a loTig consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—fir the 3s. 4d., and one farthing for
the damages .uitained.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, April 18.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gout-Bumf.)
IN RE REAY AND REAT.

To-day was appointed fir an audit of the accounts of these
bankrupts, who were wine-merchants in Mark-lane. No-
thing I üblicly transpired as to the accounts, but it was stated
that, at present, no idea could be formed as to the amount of
the dividend. _ _

The Solicitor to the assignees applied for the Learned
Commissioner's sanction to the allowance of extra costs in
this case, for double meetings, as the estate was very large,
and the affairs intricate.

The Learned COMMISSIOWER having referred to the rules
and orders, &c., said that he would allow them.
The Solicitor next applied for fees to Counsel on the choice
of as-ignees.
The Learned COAMISSIONER said he was afraid that he
could not make an order tbr that, for by the statute the peti-
tioning creditor was bound to prosecute the commission until
the choice of assignees.
. . . .

The Solicitor said that he was not solicitor at the time to
the petitioning creditor, but appeared on behalf of creditors
to the amount of 140,000'., and they were, after a long dis-
cussion, appointed—it would have been almost impossible to
have done justice to the case without the assistance of
counsel, wh,Ne exertions were continued at the same meeting.
The Learned COMMISSIONER -aid the Act gave power to
grant costs zo the petitt,ning creditor and to the assignees,
but here there was a gap, and it became a very nice point:
but in a case which had been so well conducted thtoughout,
he thought all the costs which could be allowed ought to be.
He should, therefore, allow these.