The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-19 00:00:00

CHARLES WRIGHT V. THE QUEEN-IN ERROR.

In this case a writ of error had been issued, calling
upon this Court to reverse a sentence of outlaw passed
upon the plaintiff in error, on the ground that several
of the counts of the indictment in which the offence
was charged were bad. The indictment was admitted
to be bad.
Th 4 ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who appeared for the
plaintiff in error, was heard at great length in support
of the reversal of the outlawry and the judgment of the
Court.

Sir Frederick Thesiger appeared for the Crown.
The COURT considered, as the indictment was ad-
mitted to be bad, that the outlawry ought to be reversed,
and that it was absurd to ask it to reverse a judgment
which had never been pronounced; in fact, with the re-
versal of the outlawry, the proceedings were brought to
a close.

The remainder of the day was occupied with cases of
disputed pauper settlements, which involved no point of
interest.
Jun. IMMUNE, M.P., AND MR. LEWIS, TUE ASSISTANT
POOR-LAW COMMISSIONER. "
This case will come on for argument on Tuesday next

BAIL COURT, Nov. 18.

FaiITLKNEIt V. HALL.—QUESTION AS TO THE LIABILITY

OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.

Mr. MARTIN appeared in this case to show cause
against a rule for entering judgment against the plain-
tiff as in case of a nonsuit for not proceeding to trial.
The action was brought against a provisional committee-
man, and was to have come on for trial at the last Lei-
cester Assizes. The plaintiff, however, did not go on
with the cause, alleging that he had been advised not to
do so by his counsel, in consequence of the very un-
settled state of the law with regard to the liability of
provisional committeemen. He stated that it was a well-
known fact that the opinions entertained by Mr. Justice
Cresswell on this subject differed from those entertained
by all the other judges, and he preferred waiting until
the law was more settled.
Mr. CARRON said that he had often heard excuses for
not proceeding to trial, but never one like this.
Mr. MARTIN said that the Court of Exchequer had
lately discharged several rules on peremptory undertak-
ings being given to proceed to trial as soon as the ques-
tion was settled.

Mr. JUStiCe IATTESON—IIow do you know you will
have any rule of law laid down?
Mr. MARTIN said that there was a case about to come
on in the Court of Queen's Bench, the decision on which
would finally settle the question.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 18.
CLEMENTS V. FLIGHT.
In this case, which came before the Court on demurrer
to a plea of non-detinet, the plaintiff sought to recover
possession of certain scrip shares and certificates depo-
sited by him with the defendant as collateral security
for the payment of an advance of a sum of money
amounting to 7001., to be returned to the plaintiff upon
repayment of the above sum. The declaration set forth
that the defendant bath and does detain the property in
question. The plea of the defendant was to the effect,
that the defendant did tender to the plaintiff the pro-
perty in question, upon receiving payment of the sum
advanced upon it, but that the plaintiff refused to ac-
cept it.
It was now contended by Mr. Ltmu that the defend-
ant's plea was not a sufficient answer to the declaration
in the cause, inasmuch as it did not set forth the reason
of his present holding.
Mr. HoGoixs, on the other hand, contended that the
defendant, having lawfully fulfilled the conditions and
the terms of his contract, in having made the tender of
the good 3, was not bound to assign in his plea any
notice of the reason of the goods still being in his pos-
session, it being the fault of the plaintiff which had pre-
vented him from delivering the goods in question.
The COURT took time to consider.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 18.
THOMSON AND ANOTHER V. LACK.
This was an action brought under a covenant to re-
cover a sum of money from one of the co-sureties of an
annuitant. The defendant pleaded that at the time the
action was brought he was under the protection of the
Bankruptcy Act, having received a protection under its
provisions, and that he had received a release from his
obligation under the covenant., from the other co-trustee.
To those pleas the plaintiff demurred.