The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-21 00:00:00

MARSHALL V. POWELL AND POWELL.

This was an action to recover the amount of a pro-
missory note for 411. Os. Bd., drawn by the defendants,
and delivered to the plaintiff under the following cir-
cumstances:—
The defendants became the tenants of a farm in April
last. A valuation was made, and the amount to be paid
at the incoming was set down at 94/., 53/. of which was
paid at once, and a promissory note given for the re-
mainder, on the understanding that there should be a
revision of the valuation on the subsequent Ist of
August, and that the parties should then give or receive,
according to the value of the crops at that period. The
revision was not made until the 2d of August, and was
not completed until the 20th, when the former valuation
was confirmed. A dispute thus arose between the par-
ties, who proceeded to trial. The agreement was pro-
duced, and was found to be unstamped ; and coupling
this with the fact that the revision was not made on the
Ist of August, the plaintiff was non-suited. A rule was
subsequently obtained, calling upon the plaintiff to show
cause why the non-suit should not be set aside, and a
new trial had.

The case now came on for argument.
Mr. BAINES (with whom was Mr. Bliss) was heard at
great length in opposition to the rule. He contended
that the agreement ought to have been stamped, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act, and
cited a number of cases in support of this vii w. He
was engaged in a case, which was heard in the Ex-
chequer a short time ago, in which he had at
the trial' sought to give in evidence an un-
stamped document, Nigmd by the defendant in the
cause, setting forth that he had bought 50 railway
shares, for which be would pay on a certain day. Ile
held that the instrument was one which did not require
a stamp, but the Court differed with him, and refused his
application fur a new trial. In this case it was evident
that the document, out of which the dispute arose,
was one which required a stamp, in order to make it a
valid document. Beside,., its provisions had not been
complied with, and the defendants could not be held to
be bound by such an instrument.
Mr. WATSON followed in support of the rule. Ile
held that the docum,nt did not require a stamp, inas-
much as it was a mere statement in licknovt ledgment of
an understanding between the parties, and could not be
looked upon in the light of a contract. The real ques-
tion at issue was, whether the revision of the crops was
tube on their condition at the Ist of August, or at the
time it was actually made. lie held that the revision
was to be made on the condition of the crops on the Ist,
although the valuation might not have been made until
a short time after, but when it was made it related to the
condition of the crops on the Ist.
The COURT considered that the parties were bound by
the agreement to have a revaluation made on the Ist of
August, and to abide by the result; and that the docu-
ment, from its peculiar nature, was admissible at the
trial. - _

The rule was therefore refused on the first point, but
granted on the second, so that a new trial will take place.

SPENCER V. MAYNARD, AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff in forma
pauperis to recover compensation for an assault and
false imprisonment for six months in the Northallerton
House of Correction, to which he bad been committed
by the defendants, who are magistrates of the Weft
Riding of Yorkshire. The case was tried some time ago,
when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, but the
compensation they awarded was the smallest coin in the
realm. A rule was subsequently obtained calling upon
the defendants to show cause why they should not pay
certain costs incurred by the plaintiff in unsuccessfully
endeavouring to obtain his liberation by means of an
habeas corpus.
Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., showed cause against the rule.
He said the defendants committed the plaintiff on an in-
formation which was laid before them by a person
named Dyer, who was the plaintiff's landlord, setting
forth that he had fraudulently removed his goods, in
order to avoid a distress. After being two months in
prison, he obtained a writ of habeas corpus, on the
ground that the conviction was informal, and was
brought up before Mr. Justice Coleridge, who, as the
party who originally lodged the information had
lodged another free from the defects of the
old one, sent the plaintiff back to prison. Mr. Jackson,
the plaintiff's attorney, had advised him not to attend
to the magistrates, but the plaintiff and three others
were committed. An appeal was made to the Quarter
Sessions, where Jackson said this—" Only quash this
indictment against the three. and I'll consent that it
shall be confirmed as against Spencer." The plaintiff
went back to prison, applied for the habeas corpus, was
unsuccessful, and remained there the full term. The
Learned Judge who tried the case told the jury that
they could not include the expense in their verdict.
The plaintiff by his declaration could not recover ex-
penses, but damages, because they arose out of an act
on his own part quite it respective of the object for

which he sought compensation..
Mr. BARNES, Q.C., held, on the other hand, that the
expenses were incurred by the plaintiff in order to ob-
tain his liberation, of which he had been deprived by
the acts of the defendants, that he was driven to incur
them, and that the cost was ono which might have been
included in a general verdict.
MI: HALL, who was on the same sidz', instanced the
expense as the value the plaintiff put upon his liberty,
and contended that it re,olved itself into the nature of
damages.
The COURT discharged the rule, stating that the plain-
tiff had not sufficiently made out a claim to be compen-
sated.

fl IL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. MOTTRAM.

Mr. ll.A.wioNs applied to have the defendant in this
ease, who was now lying in Derby gaol, on a charge of
manslaughter, admitted to Lail in the country. The
charge was for having caused the death of a person by
administering improper drugs. He was a poor man, and
an itinerant vendor of medicine.
•Mr. Justice PATTESON, after reading the affidavits,
granted the application—the prisoner to find bail, him-
self in the sum of 2001., and four sureties in the sum of
50/. each.