The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE l5, 1846.

exempt any offender from any proceeding in respect of
any offence against the person in which any magistrate
or commissioner is or shall be empowered to exercise
any summary jurisdiction without trial by jury.
6. Provided also that as regards any offence against
the person perpetated before the - day of -- 1846,
and also as regards any offence against the person in
part perpetrated by any act done before that day, and
which offence shall be completed or consummated on or
after that day, the offender shall be punishable as if this
Act had not been passed.
7. That after the passing of this Act every offence in
respect of which it is declared by the said schedule that
the offender shall incur the penalties of the 6th, or of
any higher class, shall be tried in the same manner, and
be subject to all the same rules of procedure as if such
offence were by the said schedule declared to be a felony ;
and every offence in respect of which it is declared by
the said schedule that the offender shall incur the
penalties of any lower class, shall be tried in the same
manner, and be subject to all the same rules of procedure
as if such last-mentioned offence were by the said
schedule declared to be a misdemeanount

t The object of the above clause is to make the system
of procedure at preient applicable to felonies and mis-
demeanours, applicable to the offences contains d in the
schedule, according to the provisions of the above
clause, until your Commissioners shall have considered
the whole subject of the degrees of crimes and trial of
offenders.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 13
(Sittings in Banco.)
EADON V. BRANSON.

This was a demurrer.by the defendant in an action for the
recovery of a sum of money, paid by the plaintiff for the de-
fendant, for a number of railway shares, the defendant con-
tending by his pleas that the plaintiff was not entitled to re-
cover the amount, inasmuch as the shares the plaintiff had
paid for for him were in railway companies that had not ob-
tained certificates of complete registration, which was neces-
sary to make the transaction legal.
Mr. PASIILEY, wile appeared to support the demurrer,
argued that the decision of the Court of Exchequer in Young
v. Smith, was not correct, and asked this Court to come to
a different decision.

Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., whe appeared for the plaintiff, csn-
tended that it did not appear from the defendant's pleas that
the companies in which the defendant had been trafficking
had not obtained certificates of complete registration, and
when it was sought to get rid of a responsibility upon such
grounds as those urged by the defendant, it was necessary
to state it particularly upon the record. But he would apply
himself to what he conceived to be the legitimate question
the defendant sought by this demurrer to bring before the
Court. The Learned Counsel then went on to argue the
various sections in the Joint-stock Companies Act, and
contended that it was quite immaterial whether the compa-
nies had obtained certificates of registration to entitle the
plaintiff to recover in this action, that the Court of Exche-
quer, in Young v. Smith, had properly construed the meaning
of the Legislature, and the law as it then stood was correct,
and that if it was otherwise, all the sales of scrip and every
scrip transaction would be decided to be illegal.
As there are several other cases before the Court in which
the same points are raised the Court took time to consider.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 13.
(After Term Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and a Common Jury.)
SAUNDERS V. CREAGH.
Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr. M. Smith, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant. •
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
bankers in Exeter, to recover the sum of 1081. from defen-
dant, who is a half•pay officer, and paymaster to the out-
pensioners of the south-west of England. The debt was
alleged to have been incurred by plaintiff overdrawing his
account at the bank.

After a lengthened examination of witnesses, the case was
referred to arbitration.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, June 13.

SIR W. GOSSEIT, KNIGHT, V. NOWA PR 'NUL EG ES OF

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

This was a writ of error issued at the instance of the
plaintiff, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, to
recover a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench pronounced
in an action brought against the plaintiff by the defendant,
who is an attorney in Norfolk-street, for trespass and false
and illegal detention of the defendant's person.
TheArronNEy-GENERAL opened the case for the plaintiff,
but had not concluded when the Court rose.
The further hearing is postponed till Monday.