The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-15 00:00:00

WRIGHT V. BASKERVILLE.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved for a rule to show cause
why a verdict obtained in this case, tried before Mr.
Justice Erie in the sittings after last term, should not be
set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a verdict given, to
the defendant on the two issues. In the trial a verdict
had been given for the plaintiff—damages, 40s. The
action was brought on the allegation of a nuisance created
by the defendant by smoke, generated through certain
chimneys which he had erected. The present applica-
tion for a rule was made by consent, arising out of cer-
tain objections taken at the close of the trial. The de-
fendant sought the reversal of the verdict on three
grounds—first, that the defendant did not light the fires
that gave out the offensive smoke; second, that the de-
fendant at the time was not possessed of the property of
which complaint was made, having demised it to other
parties ; and third, that the smoke arose from chimneys
of low houses, contiguous to the dwelling-house of the
plaintiff, and not from any obnoxious trade or workshop;
therefore that he had the right to the use of the atmos-
phere for the purpose of carrying off his smoke in
common with his neighbours.—Rule to show cause
granted.
JARDINE V. SHERIDAN.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL moved✓ for a rule to show
cause why a new suit should not be entered, and a
new trial granted in this case.
The plaintiff had been nonsuited in last term, from
a material witness not forthcoming when the case was
called on for trial. The action was for work and labour
done by the plaintiff, for the defendant, in collecting
data from official documents, respecting the importation
of coals and other merchandise, into the port of London,
with the barges employed, in order to furnish materials
on which to found a new company. The affidavits set
forth that the defendant had been guilty of great irre-
gularities, and had been the means of keeping away the
material witness to the plaintiff's case, by which he had
been nonsuited.—Rule granted.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Christopher Rafton, an advertising agent, was charged
with obtaining 31. 9s. from Nathaniel Willick, secretary
to the University Insurance Society, under false pre-
tences, and with intent to defraud William Harris, the
proprietor of a weekly publication of a religious cha-
racter, called the Alliance.
Mr. Kean appeared to defend the prisoner, and stated,
at an early part of the investigation, that the case arose out
of a dispute between the proprietors of the paper. The
prisoner had certainly obtained the money, but he had
been authorised to do so by the prosecutor's partners.
The prosecutor said, in a very vehement manner, that
he was the sole proprietor of the paper, and that " the
party" who had sent the prisoner to take the money had
no property in the paper.
The prosecutor having been rebuked by Mr. Henry
for the expressions he had made use of, proceeded with
his evidence ; from which it appeared that the prisoner
had been employed by him to collect advertisements and
obtain subscribers for the Alliance newspaper, but left
his employment abruptly in the course of last week. He
was paid by commission. He was not authorised to re-
ceive any money for advertisements. Witness wrote
yesterday to Mr. Willick, requesting him to pay a sum
of 31. 9s. due for advertisements of the University In-
surance Society, inserted in the Alliance. Mr. Willick
sent answer that he had already paid the amount to the
prisoner. Witness immediately gave information to the
police, and the prisoner was arrested in the course of
the day.
In cross-examination, partly by Mr. Kean, and partly
by the Court, Mr. Harris admitted that other persons
besides himself had an interest in the paper. He had
entered into an agreement with a Mr. Robert Holt, a
Mr. William Holt, and a Mr. William Bright, that on
condition of their lending him certain sums of money,
they should hold certain situations (as editor and sub-
editors) with fixed salaries, and should have a share in
the profits of the paper. He, however, was the sole
proprietor.
The payment of the money to the prisoner having
been proved,
Mr. HENRY observed that there was no proof of any
false representation being made to Mr. Willick, and the
very essence of the offence was the false pretence. It
was clear that there were partners in the concern, who
might have authorized the prisoner to receive the money.
The prisoner was discharged.
Mr. Holt wished to make a statement in answer to
that of the prosecutor, and other personal charges, but
Mr. HENRY said he could not hear anything that had
reference to disputes between partners, which must be
settled in a court of equity, and not in a criminal court.