The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-11 00:00:00

having expressed their satisfaction, the voting commenced,
at the conclusion of which the numbers were (shares re-
preseflted)—

For proceeding 30,9.93
Against 2,190

Majority ..28,103
Loud cheering followed the announcement.
Votes of thanks and confidence were given to the Chair-
man and directors, after which the meeting separated.
[The Chairman and directors, from the open and straight-
forward mantra in which they answered all questions put to
them, and from the circumstance of their courting inquiry,
won the good opinions of all the shareholders presenL—En.
N. G.]

LAW ISTELLIGEN CE,
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 9
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
BEALE V. MOULDS AND OTHERS.

This was an action taken by tha plaintiff to recover the
amount of a steam-boiler, made by him for the use of de-
fendant, who contended that there had been a breach of con-
tract, inasmuch as that the boiler was not made at the time
agreed upon.
The jury found for the defendant.

BAIL COURT, May 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Several cases were disposed of in this Court to-day, but
none of them were of the least interest. One was an action
for slander, taken by a police superintendent in Leeds, for a
letter written of him, in which he was charged with conduct
unfit for publication ; but the case was held over for the
appearance of defendant's counsel.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 9.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
HENDON V. STRAY.
This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff was a dancing master, and the defendant a
tailor. They had had mutual dealings, and upon the
plaintiff deminding the balance in his favour, defendant used
ill language to him, assaulted him, and gave him in charge
to the police.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 40a.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 9.
WILSON V. BARFORD.
This was what is called a " running down" case. The
plaintiff was an omnibus proprietor and the defendant the
owner of a public coach. A collision took place between the
two on the night of the Ist of January last at Woodland-
street, when the plaintiff alleged that his vehicle sustained
considerable damage.
(The case had not closed when our report left.)

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 9.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK.)
NAGLE V. TIVPP.

This was an action to recover the small sum of 2/. ss, for
work done for the defendant.

Mr. RYLAND stated the case. Both parties are pianoforte
makers, and the defendant had been employed to repair a
grand piano for a lady named Defolie, for which he charged
18/. Plaintiff had been engaged to do a particular portion of
the work, for which he charged V. Bs., and it was not until
after the action was commenced that the defendant offered
to pay V. without costs.
Witnesses were called who proved that the work had been
Cone, and that it was worth more than the sum charged.
Ara attorney was proceeding to address the jury, but was
stopped by the Learned Commissioner, who said that he
could not be beard, as he was not the attorney on the reccrd.
The attorney said that he had retained Mr. Thomas as
counsel.
The COMIT—But you could not do so. No person has the
privilege of retaining counsel but the attorney on the record.
The defendant had appeared and pleaded in person, and
ought to have attended the trial in person. No counsel
would, in a civil suit, take a brief except from the attorney
on the record.
Mr. RI-LAND said he would not press the case strictly, but
admit the attorney to be heard.
Ultimately the jury gave a verdict for the full amount
claimed.