The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

DUNCOSIBE T. LEVY.

In this case it was arranged that cause should be shown nn
Monday nest, and that, in the meantime, the defendant
should be at liberty to proceed as if the injunction had Lot
been granted.
His Hosouß, after disposing of several other cases, rose
before twelve o'clock.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wvanatx.)
FISH V. LORD PALMERSTON.
His HONOUR gave judgment this morning. The case was
argued before the Court some time ago, and the main point
in dispute was a claim for interest from the date of the sale
of the property purchased by the defendant in October, 1840.
The Court this morning went again into the evidence and
correspondence at great length, commenting on the points
raised by counsel in their argument. His Honour said that
no one could doubt, after reading the correspondence which
had passed between the parties, prior to the 7th April, 1841,
that Lord Palmerston had admitted the purchase and entered
into the contract; at the same time the subsequent letters
having been admitted on both sides, the Court would not
hold his Lordship bound by any admisssion found
in that correspondence. 6n the whole it could
not be held that it was a case of sur-
prise or otherwise. The most favourable view of
the plaintiff's case was, that he had proved the
terms, but had failed to prove the conditions of sale. His
Honour came, therefore, to the only point in dispute,
whether interest should be allowed to the plaintiff, and he
decided that interest ;should be allowed on the purchase-
money, including the timber, from the 10th October, 1841,
taking that as the date when the contract was entered into.
An inquiry should be made whether, and what, rents and
profits, if any, had been derived from the prop:rty by the
plaintiff after that time. If the barn had fallen through
dilapidailon, or been pulled down previous to that time, the
defendant was entitled to an account against the plaintiff.
The case was such that the Court could nut allow costs to
either party.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
BAKER V. BALLARD.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 97. 2s.
on a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that he had
paid the amount.
The plaintiff is a surgeon, and the defendant an attorney's
clerk.
Mr. Tuomas, on behalf of the defendant, put in a receipt
for the amount. The receipt was not dated ; but the water-
mark on the stamp was the fourth month 011845; it was. in
the following words, "48, Gray's Inn-lane.—Received of
Mr. William Ballard, 9/. 25., as per bill for medicines and
medical attendance up to Michaelmas last—John Baker."
Roger Hall, clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, said he did
not think that the receipt was in the plaintiff's hand-writing,
but he would admit it to be.
The UNDER-SHERIFF—What do you mean by saying that
you do not believe it to be his hand-writing, yet that you
will admit it?
The witness said he believed it to be forged.
saidctedisa,a.receipt had been given, and no doubtit
Mr.11,1,,1a 8.
lethe
monnixe
s not pretended that there was more
s° cps
arKoi
ad lit
than this one transaction between the parties.
Charles Harvey was called, and deposed that he was well-
acquainted with the plaintiff's hand-writing, and that the
receipt was his writing,
Mr. CHARNOcK then addressed the jury for the plaintiff,
and said that he should be able to prove that the defendant,
in answer to an application for the amount of the bill, seht
the bill of exchange, and requested an acknowledgment,
whereupon the receipt was sent.
Charles Horne, a bey about fourteen, was called, and de
posed that I.e was present when defendant's son called with
a letter. He believed the letter to be the one produced, and
the bill was enclosed in it. Plaintiff told witness to get a
receipt stamp Out of the drawer, and plaintiff wrote a receipt
and gave it to the lad Ballard. lie thought the receipt now
put in was the one, but he c uld not say whether or not there
was a.stamp on it at the time.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said if the witness could not recol-
lect that, his evidence went for little on the other points.
Mr. THOMAS contended that the action was in reality
that of Hall, who held the bill before it became due, and had
admitted that he had written several letters 'te defendant
threatening to expose him in the Sheriffs' Court as to the na-
ture of his complaint if he did not pay. The Learned Counscl
said it was most extraordinary that Hall should deny the
genuineness of the receipt when the substantial defence was
that it had been given when the bill was sent.
The UNDER-SUERIFF said it was clear that a most un-
worthy trick had been played on one side or the other, and it
was for the jury to say on which. On the part of the plain-
tiff it ought to be argued that the date hat' been left out in
consequence of cash not being received, intending that it
should operate when the bill was taken up. The proper
course would have beer. to have said "Received by bill of
exchange," if it was so. On the other hand no proof of pay-
ment was offered, but theholdine• the receipt was Prima facie
evidence. On the other hand the bill was still in the possession
of the plaintiff; and that went in his favour, as it hac: not been
shown why it was not delivered up if the money was pail
on it.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Charlts Baker was charged with assaulting his father.
The complainant, who was a very old man, stated that the
prisoner had for some time been very much in the habit of
drinking excessively, and had frequently assaulted him while
in a state of intoxication. Last evening witness having been
at work, returned home and found the prisoner very much
intoxicated, and using threatening language to his mother. He
reproved him for lila conduct, and said that knowing what effect
drink always had upon him he ought to be more careful.
The prisoner abused him, and threatened to " take his life's
blood;"
with Wix, alluding to the murder lately committed in
Drury-lane.
adding that he would hang on the same gallows
He then snatched up a pair of scissors and
made a blow at him with them, which he however evaded.
The prisoner then went down to the kitchen, and witness