The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-13 00:00:00

Viitrb lafttton

QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)

A.LCOCK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.

The arguments in this case were resumed. It was an
action to recover the value of a policy of insurance on
the ship " William Thompson," which was wrecked off
Alexandria in 1843. The verdict was given fur the
plaintiff. A rule had been obtained calling up At him to
show cause why a new trial should not be had on the
ground of the reception of improper evidence and the
exclusi,)n of evidence.

Sir Frederick Thesiger, Sir John Bayley, and Mr.
Bovill, showed cause against the rule.
The further arguments were interrupted by the rising
of the Court for the purpose of attending the pricking for
sheriffs. They will be resumed to. morrow.

EX CHEQ UER.—( TI-1 IS DAY.)
This afternoon the ceremony of "pricking for the
sheriffs" for the counties of England and Wales, for the
ensuing year, took place in the presence of the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Campbell, the Marquis of Lansdowne,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Baron of
the Exchequer, and the Chief Justices of the Queen's
Bench and Common Pleas, and the majority of tie
puisne judges. The court was crowded to excess during
the ceremony.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
PRATT v. PLETCHER.
This action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for a criminal couversation with the wife of
the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a young man of very respectable
family and connexions, holding a situation as clerk
in the Customs, and the defendant a surgeon, carrying
on business at Hoxton.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Addison appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Humphrey and another Learned Gen-
tleman for the defendant,
From the statement of Mr. Sergeant Shee it appeared
thatithe plaintiff, who is twenty-five years of age, mar-
ried in 1843 the object of his affections, being a parti-
cularly beautiful and accomplished young lady, of
eighteen years of age, the subject of this action,
and the daughter of a respectable farmer; living in
the neighbourhood of Bristol. In the present year
they resided at De Beauvoir-square, Kingsland, and it
appeared that the defendant was called in in his pro-
fessional capacity to attend the wife of the plaintiff, who
was indisposed, and in the course of his attendances an
acquaintance sprang up between them, which ultimately
led to the alleged criminal intercourse.
[The trial of the case had only proceeded a stage when
the Court adjourned until to-morrow morning, the
Learned Judge having to attend the ceremony of pricking
for the sheriffs.]

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
REGISTRATION APPEALS.
JOLIFFE ♦PPELLANT-PRICE RESPONDENT.

This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising
Barrister for the borough of Newport. The appellant
occupied a coach-house and stable, of the yearly value
of 101, which were situated in a court-yard adjoining an
inn, in the town. The buildings were under este root,
and there was a room over the co;.ch-house and stable
which was common to both, but there was no internal
communication between them. It appeared, however,
that there was a window in the division wall. The
Revising Barrister held that it was not one building
within the 27th section of the Reform Aet, and refused
to register the appellant as a voter for the borough.
Mr. POuLDEN argued at some long h on b.;half of the
appellant, to chow that he had a proper qualification,
and

Mr. CREASEY was heard on the part of the respondent.
The Lor) CHIEF JUSTICE said it seldom happened
that there 1% ai any internal communication between a
coach-house and a stable, and that the circumstance of
its b ing n.ctssary to go cut into the yard to get from
one to the other was no more than happened with re-
gard to every o cupati,n of this description. It appeared
to him, from the statement of the case, that the coach-
house and stable, in point of fact and in point of law,
constituted one building, and that the rep sing bar
rister had drawn an erroneous conclusion. He was there-
fore of opinion that the party was entitled to be re-
gistered as the ocgupier of orie
The other judges concurred in this opinion, and the de-
cision of the revising barrister was accordingly reversed.