The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-17 00:00:00

WOOI.3IAIC V. TOBY.

Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE :applied fur a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a
new trial had. The grounds of the application were upon
the facts of the case as they appeared on the trial, which
have already been published in The Sun at length. The
facts were shortly these:—The defendant applied to the
Direct Exeter, Plymouth, and Devonport Railway directors
for forty shares, for which he was to pay within a reason-
able time; but defendant found that in. the meantime the
names of the provisional committee and directors had been
altered, and other names substituted; he also alleged that
there was an abandonment of the scheme at the time of the
allotment; that the application for the payment of the de-
posit was not, made within a reasonable time; and that there
were variances in the mode of setting out the number of
shares ; and that the Company were bound to go before
Parliament. There was also a series of resolutions to the effect
that the Company should be dissolved, and the scheme
abandoned, on the 30th of December.—Rule granted.
FOSTER V. BANK OF ENGLAND.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE applied for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this case should not be set aside. This case
was tried at Guildhall in the last term. The facts of the case
were these :—lt appeared that a person named William
Oxley, who had been 37 years a clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land, had been intimate with the husband of the plaintiff,
who was an illiterate old woman, and whose affairs
he undertook to manage after her husband's death.
That the plaintiff had given Oxley about 4001. to lodge
in the Bank, which had been entered to her credit, but had
been converted into stock. and sold out by him without her
authority. Oxley at the trial contended that he had the
plaintiff's authority for the transfer, but admitted that he
took the money, and did not pay it to her; he alleged that
she had given him the authority to transfer, upon his having
repre,ented that he could procure her a larger amount of in-
terest than what she was paid by the Bank of England.
After the Learned Sergeant had argued the case at great
length,
Lord DENMAN said it appeared to him that the transfer
had been a valid transfer.

The other Learned Judges were of the same opinon.
Rule refused.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Mr. Thomas Campbell Foster, the " Times Commis-
sioner," took the oaths on being called to the bar.
HARRIS V. KIMBERLEY.
Mr. Sergeant ALLAN moved for a rule to set aside a
non-suit obtained by default, the plaintiff having been
absent when the cause was called on.
This was a cause which was put down for trial by a
special jury at the last Gloucester Assizes, and there be-
ing 13 or 14 common jury trials to come on on the Tues-
day, the special causes were ordered for hearing on the
succeeding morning at nine o'clock. The Lord Chief
Baron, however, without notifying his intention of doing
so, sat at eight o'clock, and thus when the plaintiff and
his witnesses arrived in Court, they found that a nonsuit
had been entered in their absence.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule to show cause, reserving
the question of who should bear the expenses till a future
period.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and

Common Juries.)
His Lordship disposed of several undefended cases.
THOMSON v. GREGORY AND WIFE.
This was an action to recover two sums, one of 241. 19s.
5►4d., and the other 111. 19s. 3d. In respect of the second
claim the defendant paid the sum of 121. into court, and
pleaded "not indebted" as to the first.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Lush were for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Jervis and Mr. Peacock for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action is a grocer, carrying on busi-
ness at Hampstead, and the defendant is *Mr. Barnard
Gregory, the comedian. There was a lengthened examina-
tion of witnesses into the circumstances under which the
alleged debt took place, but the case possesses no public
interest to warrant a more detailed report.—Verdict for the
plaintiff.
The next case was one equally destitute of interest, and
occupied the attention of •the Court for nearly the remainder
of the day. It was an action to recover damages for a col-
lision that had taken place down the river between two barges.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PIGOT V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEA moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be granted in this case, which was tried
at the last Chelmsford Assizes, before Mr. Baron Alderson.
The application was made on the ground of the improper
admission of evidence by the Learned Judge. The action
was brought by the plaintiff for damage done by Ore on his
premises, contiguous to the Eastern Counties Railway, occa-
sioned by a spark or sparks from one oithe engines of the
Company. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, and the
amount of damages was settled out of Court. There
Was no dispute set up by the defendants that the fire
was not occasioned by a spark from the engine, as it
appeared the fire, which originated in the plaintiff's
cart shed, was occasioned in the way alleged ; but the
objection taken by the defendants was to the plaintiff's
declaration, which alleged that the damage arose from negli-
gence and unskilfulness on the part of the Company, in not
using a fire-screen or " bonnet,' such as is used on other rail-
ways, for the prevention of sparks flying off; and also in
the use of engines inadequate in power to the work. Two
scientific witnesses were called in support of this declaration,
and several other witnesses were examined, who stated they
continually saw sparks emitted, some as large as an orange,
and that they saw several flying into the premises of the
plaintiff. Evidence of this kind was admitted to an unli-
mited extent, to the admission of which the defendants ob-
jected, on the ground that the declarations severally attri-
buted negligence and unskilfulness in the management of the
railway, whereas he submitted the declarations should have
been confined to the particular case at issue, and to the pre-
cise facts of negligence in relation to it.—Rule to show cause
granted.
The Ceurt shortly afterwards rose.

SECONDARIES.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Parma.)
CLARIGE V. ALSTON.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 151. 16s. 6d.,
of which the defendant was alleged to be the acceptor. The
defendant pleaded that it was not his acceptance.
Mr. PEARSON appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, um
he said is an oilman in Fore-street, City, and the defendant
is a beer-shop keeper in the vicinity. He would call two
witnesses to prove that the defendant had admitted to them
that he had accepted a bill for 151. 16r., drawn by a Mr.
Hude and indorsed to Mr. Hamond, who had paid it away to
the plaintiff. What evidence could be called to rebut this
he was at a loss to conjecture.
The first witness called was a clerk to Mr. Hammond, who
proved that the defendant called on him, and said his name
was Alston, and he had called about a bill drawn by Hude,
which he was told was in Mr Hamond's hands, and he wished
for a little time. The bill had however been paid to the
plaintiff.
The clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, proved that when he
served the writ, the defendant said that he had accented a
bill for the accommodation of Hude, who was to have assisted
him in taking it up, but he (defendant) would pay it in a
short time.
Mr. IluGires, for the defendant, elicited that the witness
did not know the handwriting, nor was the bill in question
produced to him. The Learned Counsel then addressed the
jury, and submitted that they were bound to go by the evi-
dence, and there had not been any given as to the hand-
writing. That there had been bill traksactions with Hude
there could be no doubt, but there might have been many
other bills to the same amounts. Hude ought to have been
called to have shown the bill was the one the defendant had
signed.
t ale Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff'.