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

fact that the show is increasing, arc a dull inquiry, and their cur-
rencies are with dilidculty supported.
WOOL.

During 'the past week the imports of both foreign- and colonial
Wools have begin but moderate—viz., 1,600 packages. Privately the
demand for English Wool is steady, at full prices, but all other kinds
are a dull sale, at late rates. The stocks are still on the increase.
TALLOW.

This market is dull and inactive. Prices are heavy, with an un-
usually small stock. There are no sellers of Y. C., to arrive for the
last three months, under 41s Gd in bond. Town Tallow 41s to 41s Gd
net cash ; rough fat, 2a cl per 8114.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HODGSISS V. lIIPKISS.

This part-heard case, which came on for further hearing
to day, was in prosecution of the will of John Hipkiss, who
died in 1835. Immediately after the testator's death, and
previous to the production of the will, a conditional agreement
was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as
to the division of the property ; but against the validity of
this agreement, it was alleged in the pleadings that intoxi-
cation had been employed in obtaining the signature. When
the arguments were concluded, his Honour gave judgment,
observing that such an agreement ought not to have been
entered into without good and sufficient advice, as, in the
case of intestacy the plaintiff had the power of
conferring a title, and in case of there being a
will, be might have been left without control over a
single shilling. His Honour, in the case before him, could
not apply those particular principles which apply to agree-
ments in the case of families. Without referring, therefore; to
the allegation of intoxication, he dismissed the bill without
costs, and without prejudice to an action being brought at bar.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
KYNE v. EVERSHAW.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS applied for a rule to set aside
the non-suit in this case. It was tried before Mr. Baron
Alderson at the last assizes of Lewes, and the facts were
shortly these :—lt appeared that plaintiff was a builder, and
defendant a solicitor; that plaintiff built houses at Brighton,
which he had let to tenants, but was pulling down a wall of
one of the Louses when defendant interfered and told plaintiff
to desist, which he refused. Defendant then brought a
police-officer, and plaintiff still persevering, both parties
went to the town-hall before the magistrates, and eventually
went to trial. That the only evidence given was to the
effect that the witness heard that the house in question had
been mortgaged, and that defendant was solicitor to the
mortgagee.—Rule granted.

BAIL COUR.T.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. )
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. WELLSMA N.
Mr. UDALL applied for a rule to show cause why an attach-
ment should not issue against a Mr. Wellman for non-per-
formance of a ruleof court.

It appeared that Mr. Wellsman is a churchwarden of a
parish in the county of Suffolk, and in the course of la,t
term a rule for a mandamus was obtained, calling on him to
place in the hands of the clerk of the peace
for the county of Suffolk an inclosure award,
in order that an inspection might be made and extracts
taken, to be adduced in evidence on an action which was
then pending under the Inclosure Act. The defendant ap-
peared by counsel, but the rule was granted. The rule was
served upon him and an inspection demanded, but the
answer of the defendant was a most decided and peremptory
refusal to allow any inspection or any extracts to be taken.—
Rule granted.
Mr. M. Smrrpr applied for the postponement of a trial in
the case of Oldfield v. Fleming.
It appeared that the action was brought to recover the
sum of 100/., which had arisen from some gaming trans-
action; and a gentleman named Jackson, an officer in the
16th Lancers (now in India) was a witness absolutely neces-
sary for the defendant's case. It was proposed to send out a
commission to examina that gentleman, but as his regiment
had been present at the affairs near the Sutlej, and was now or-
dered home, the defendant in the action was anxious that
the trial should be postponed until the return of Mr. Jackson.
The application was ordered to stand over for three days.
The Court afterwards sat at nisi prius, but no case worthy
of notice occurred.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
TE3IPEST AND ANOTHER V. KILNER.
Mr. Sergeant, Thruts moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this case should not be set aside and a non-suit
entered; or why the damages in the case should not be re-
duced to 251. instead of 1504 as given. The case was tried
at the last York assizes, before Mr. Justice Patteson,
and a verdict given for the plaintiff for 150/
The action arose out of a contract between
the parties, in which Mr. Kilner, the defendant, engaged to
supply the plaintiffs with 100 shares in the Huddersfield and
Manchester Railway at 15s. premium each. The action was
brought to recover the loss, from the shares not being deli-
vered according to contract, and the damages awarded was
the increase in the premium on the shares from the time of the
contract being executed up to the time of the action. Several
objections were taken at the time on the part of the de-
fendant, but the grcunds on which he (Mr. Sergeant Byles)
now sought for the rule was, that there were no shares in
existence at the time the action was brought (there being
only scrip issued, which could not be construed as shares),
and therefore there could be no breach of contract that the
shares should be delivered within a certain time after being
issued ; and further, supposing scrip to be construed as shares,
that the contract was off on the 12th of August, and there-
fore the only damages that ,should have been awarded, was
the difference in the premium of the scrip between tha time
of the contract and the 12th of August—viz., 251.—Rule to
show cause granted.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before the RECORDER.)

THE CHAMBERLAIN OF LONDON V. STURT AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the Corporation of London,
to recover certain penalties from the defendants, for having
carried on the profession of wholesale traders within the
limits of the City, without having previously purchased the
City freedoM.

Sir Thomas Wilde (with whom were Mr. Gurney, Mr. H.
Hill, and Messrs. Ryland and Laurie, city pleaders) ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and
The Solicitor-General, with whom were Mr. Butt and
Messrs. Randall and Altcar (city pleaders), appeared fur the
defendants.

The usual preliminaries having been gone through,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL entered a protest against the
case being tried in this court, and another against the mode
in which the jury had been empannelled ; whereupon
Sir TgomAs 'WILDE counterpleaded, and said that the
course now to be taken would be for his Lordship to appoint
proper parties to inquire into the mode in which the jury had
been empannclled.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped that as he was ignorant
of the practice of the Court, it would not be considered un-
reasonable if he expressed a hope that he might be informed
by the plaintiff's agents of the party who had made up the
jury list, because that information did not appear upon the
record, as was invariably the custom in other courts.
Sir T. WILDE said that no such custom prevailed in other
Courts.

Mr. Burr contended that it did.
The RECORDER hoped that the parties would come to some
agreement, whereby the necessity of trying the objections of
the Learned Counsel for the defendant might be obviatel.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped that his Lordship would
try the question himself.
The RECORDER—I am not an nnindifferent person.—
(Laughter )
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL-Why, my Lord, it is a misfor-
tune in cases of this kind that, if there be an objection taken
to the mode of conducting, there is no human being unindif-
ferent. The jury cannot be unindifferent persons, for they
are citizens of London.

The RECORDES—How do you know that they are citizens
of London ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—We shall find that out by-and-
by. I shall be quite willing for your Lordship to try whether
the jury was empannelled by an indifferent person or not.
The RECORDER—YOU are willing, in fact, to make me
your nominee.

The Soracrron-GENeam.—Precisely so, my Lord. Before
issue, however, is joined upon this, I hope your Lordship will
consider us entitled to some indulgence, because we are
proceeding upon a matter which involves a great constitu-
tional question, and we have not the same means of informa-
tion as my Learned Friend possesses. I should therefore,
before issue is joined, pray your Lordship to allow me to
make an alteration in the challenge which I have put in to
the jury, viz., to the effect that the inhabitants of the Cripple-
gate ward, out of which this jury has been empanelled, are
not unindifferent persons.
Sir THOMAS WILDE apprehended that it was contrary to
all practice to allow a proceeding of that character and ten-
dency, in cases of this kind. He never before heard a
such alterations being allowed. He had already counter-
pleaded to the objection of his Learned Friend, and really
if this proposed alteration were permitted, his Learned
Friend might propose alterations in perpetuity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the proceedings
had as yet only been ore tenus, and as his client, as well as
himself, were entire strangers to the practice of the Court,
he hoped his Lordship would not object to the alteration.
He would undertake not to propose any further alteration.
The RECORDER said that the Learned Solicitor General
had already made a solemn suggestion upon the record, and
he could not see how he could properly allow him to alter
his objection.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL again urged his ignorance of
the practice as a ground for the extension of some indulgence
towards him. His Learned Friend on the opposite side had
every advantage over him in respect of the customs and
practice of the Court. He had learned practitioners of the
Court on all sides ready to consult with him on behalf
of the plaintiff. He certainly did not expect to have been
met with such determined opposition and severe adhesion to
the strict letter of the practice of the Court on the part of
his Learned Friend on the opposite side.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said that his Learned Friend had no
reason to complain of ignorance of the Court, for the gentle-
man that instructed him was actually one of the attorney's
of the Court.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said, his Learned Friend must have
peculiar notions of the proceedings of the Lord Mayor's
Court. He seemed to infer that the jury came there
prejudiced in favour of the plaintiff. But he was not
content to come there and raise the question of juris-
diction, but had expressed his intention to taie
objections in every stage of the case. The objection he
e
now proposed to raise was simply this—whether the sheriff's
officer, who eared nothing, not a farthing, whether the
plaintiff pained the action or not, was a proper person to
summon the jury. That was the question which he wished
to raise, and out of it to ground a challenge to the array.
But when his Lordship knew that the officers had nothing
more to do with the selection of the jury than
any other person living, but that ether persons
were entitled to elect them—that they happened to
occur in the list which happened to be apportioned to this
month—that: persons serving on juries were elected for cer-
tain mattersin the year, and not selected to try any parti-
cular case
The RECORDER intimated that the list contained freemen
and non-freemen ; in fact, all who were qualified to fill the
office.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said he was only showing the little
value of the objection of his Learned Friend, and why his
Lordship ought nob to entertain it. The jury were selected
by the sheriff's-officer, whom his Learned Friend said was
not impartial, and, therefore, that the jury were also not
impartial. Then, with respect to the amendment which he
proposed to introduce, he (Sir T. Wilde) was of opinion that such
amendments were never allowed in cases of this kind. In
pleas of abatement, or in challenges to array, Were amend-
ments ever allowed ? He did not say what his Lordship
might do if he were sitting in a different capacity in another
place, but he was sitting here at nisi gnus. His Learned
Friend had put in issue—he had counter pleaded
and they had been entered 911 the record. But, after this, he