The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-29 00:00:00

BENT V. FORSTER.

The plaintiff is an attortie:v.---;iiieaction was brought
to recover 9/. 105. 6d. for professional services. De.
Pendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. Joyce appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hill for
defendant.

On the part of the plaintiff it was shown that the
services were rendered in• 1842 and 1843, and that the
charges were fair.

Mi. HILL said he would call witnesses to prove that
the defendant merely retained plaintiff on behalf of his
son, and that plaintiff said he would trust to the honour
of the son to pay when he came of age. The Learned
Counsel said he would give credit to attorneys generally
for a weakness in allowing their bills to stand over for a
considerable period, but he did not think their proverbial
weakness would bear out the presumption that in this
case plaintiff would have allowed the bill to stand over
for four years. The fact was, plaintiff in the first
instance undertook to bring an action on speculation.
After the son came of age plaintiff wrote to defendant,
and said that as " Joshua" (the ~on) had come of age,
and had received his money, it he (d,fendant), who was
trustee, would get the amount lie (plaintiff) would make
it answer his purpose.
The letter was put in, and a witness called to prove
the handwriting.
Mr. JOYCE—have you been insolvent? Witness--
Yes, once.
Mr. BILL—And how often has plaintiff been insol-
vent? Witness—Ti,at I can't tell lam sure, but a good
many imes,
mi.. fovc,EThat is voluw
ary, and no legal proof.
. Filea people that live in -glass-houses
epresse er and clapping
Pressed by the Under-
should no: if_ row stones.—(Great laught
of hands here occurred, but was r
Sheriff)
-minded,
Mr. JOYCE said that a more respectable, high
or honourable man than plaintiff did not exist in the
profession. He did rot believe the jury could consider
such a conspiracy could have existed between plaintiff
and defendant to injure a third party. The Learned
Counsel was proceeding to detail a conversation between
plaintiff and defendant, when
Mr. HILL said he always felt pleasure in hearing his
Learned Friend's eloquence in a good cause, but in this
he must object to statements being made which could
not be proved. His Learned Friend might say that there
was a man in the moon, the jury might believe him,
but he (Mr. Hill) would take an objection that, as the
fact could not bo legally proved, his Learned Friend
would have no right to make the assertion,—(Laughter.)
Mr. JOYCE—After that I will leave the case to the
jury,

The UNDER-SHERIFF summed Hp, and said that the
letter was an important feature of the case. If the
plaintiff had offered to share his costs, he had acted
very wrong. The question was to whom the credit had
been given.
The jury gave a verdic for defendant.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of the
Commons Enclosure Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time.
LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER, AND NEWCAS-
TLE-UPON-TYNE JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for the
appointment of a Committee of inquiry into the conduct
of the directors of this company.
Lord BEAUMONT opposed the motion.
After a short conversation the subject, as we under-
stood, dropped,
we could undNo question was put, neither, so tar as
The Earl erat
H and, Was the motion withdrawn.
of ARROIVBY presented several petitions
for the repeal
of the legacy duty payable on
pray jug
bequests left for charitable
purposeS.
BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM laid obi the table a Bill to amend
the laws relating to bankruptcy, which was read a first
time.

The Earl of RODEN presented several petitions from
the north of Ireland in favour of scriptural education.
ECCLESIASTICAL UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
BilOn the motion for the bringing up the report on this
I,

Lord STANLEY, while concurring in the great ad-
vantage of affording facilities for the dssolution of large
unions, thought it matter worthy of serious co-
sideration whether such dissolution should be carried
out without the consent of the patron of the benefice.
This Bill also proposed to authorise the Lord Lieutenant
and the Privy Council of Ireland to consolidate small
livings with the consent of patrons, that he thought Was