The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-12 00:00:00

EXCILEQVER.-(THIS DAY.)

GRAHAM V. STRADANLEN.
Mr. CRAMPTON moved in this case for a new rule to
show cause why the defendant, who was at present under
arrest, should not be discharged out of custody.
It appeared that the defendant was a trader and sub-
ject of Austria, and that he carried on business, in
conjunction with several others, as a merchant at
Smyrna. In the course of his speculations defendant
, was unfortunate, and was eventually made a bankrupt,
and the whole of his property was in conse-
, quence seized by the Austrian Consul under the
945th section of the penal code of Austria.
It was now contended by Mr. Crampton that these pro-
ceedings were illegal. The defendant arrived in this
country in order to take refuge from the persecutions to
which he was subjected. In the month of August in
the present year, an advertisement appeared in the
Times newspaper calling upon defendant to appear be-
fore the Austrian Consul, and also authorising his
apprehension ; he was accordingly arrested, and
had since that period been held in custody. De-
fendant made application to Mr. Baron Platt at chambers
for his release upon the ground that he was under the
protection of the laws of this country. On the other
side it was contended that the defendant intended to
leave the country in order to evade his creditors. In
consequence pf this conflicting evidence Mr. Baron Platt
declined to interfere in the matter, and recommended
an application to the full Court. Mr. Crampton was
now prepared with affidavits, which stated that the de-
fendant left this country a short time since, after having
lived in it for a period of six weeks, that
he had subsequently returned, and that he
now had no intention whatever of leaving England again,
that his object was to remain in the country, and to
obtain a situation in a mercantile house in the city of
London, and that ho had a great number of friends iu
this country who were exerting themselves to further
the objects he had in view, and further, that as the
Austrian Government had seized the whole of his pro-
perty at Smyrna, there was no power in the law of
England to hold his person in custody.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Is the defendant still in cus-
tody?
Mr. CaamProx—He is, my lord.
LORD CHIEF BARON—Take a rule nisi.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron PLATT and
Common Juries.)
BANKS V. WHITWELL.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
1251., being the balance of an account for engraving the
plans and sections of the Bristol and Dover Railway, and
also the Leeds and Newcastle Railway. The de-
fendant was the engineer to both of these lines.
The defence set up was that the work was so badly
'done as to be entirely useless for the purpose
of Parliamentary deposit, and several witnesses
were called, who stated that the proofs, as sent home by
the plaintiff, were not correct, and that they required
the additional labour of upwards of twenty hands to cor-
rect and prepare them, and that in some of the proofs
neither the line of railway nor the deviation lines were
shown. There was no evidence, however, to show that
the original copy or tracings sent to the engraver for the
purpose of engraving from, had either of these requisites
rissirked upon them, no notice having been served by the
defendant upon the plaintiff to produce them.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the sums
claimed.