The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-18 00:00:00

BUSHELL V BOORD.--NTUDGMENT.

Mr. Justice PATTISON gave the judgment of ti e
Court in this case, Which had been argued before his
Lordship during the last term, upon a motion to make
a rule absolute which had been granted, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why the judgment and the exe-
cution should not be set aside, and parts of the money
levied returned.

The Court ordered the rule to be discharged with
costs.

BOLAM V. SHAW.—JUDGMENT.
Lord DENMAN gave the judgment of the Court in this
case, which came before their Lordships upon motion for
a new trial. The action had been brought by the plain-
tiff against the defendant upon a special agreement
that he would instruct the son of the defendant
in farming, for 1001. a year, to be paid half-yearly.
The money had been paid regularly till tho last half-
year, when the defendant took away his son, and de-
clined to pay the money.
Their LORDSHIPS were clearly of opinion that no
sufficient ground had been bronght forward to induce the
Court to disturb the verdict which had been pronounced
in favour of the defendant.

MURRIETTA. V. OLDFIELD.-JUDCMENT.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, ordering to
the rule that had been granted to be discharged.
The Court then broke up.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 17.
HOOPER AND ANOTHER V. TREFFEY
In this case Mr. Gurney and Mr. Baddeley• appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr.
M. Smith, appeared for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant, who was a gentle-
man of considerable property, residing at Fowey,
and the proprietor of a considerable extent of
woodland, was anxious to dispose of a quantity
of the bark from the trees upon his estate. A
sam g,
London, who waited upon the petitioner with the
sample, and was referred by him to Purday's Tavern,
Leadenhall-market, a house much frequented by per-
sons in the tanning trade. Upon that occasion,
he met a person of the name of Thomson, who
approved of the sample, and agreed to purchase a
quantity of it for the plaintiff: A schooner, freighted
with about 80 tons of the bark shortly after arrived at
Leith, for the person who had agreed to purchase the
article in London. The plaintiffs had previously given
their acceptance to the defendant for the amount of the
bark, which had since been paid. Upon the delivery of
the cargo to the purchaser. Mr. Thomson, it was disco-
vered that it was not according to sample, and also that
it was much damaged by the effects of the weather.
Mr. CROWDER contended that there was no ground
for the present action by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant. The sole party aggrieved, if any. was Mr.
Thomson, the purchaser of the cargo, and he was the
party who should have brought the action.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he wou!d reserve
that point.
Mr. CROWDER then contended that the cargo was
originally equal to sample, and proceeded to call wits
s.
It appeared, however, from the cross-examination of
'Me of them, that the
sample originally sent up was not
of the same quality as the cargo.
sumThcealunreydr.eturned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
COURT OF
CC°.ll—liti PLEAS, Dec. 16.
R
CAM ON onsoN v. RUDING.
(Continued from our Morning
yesterday.)
After the examination of se/eErailitotiliTerorwitnesses,
be
regretted
fur the Sir F. THESIGER, in addressing
husancirettzdottat by
de-
fendant, said it was very much to
our law it was impossible fors
diverse without going through the "ordeal of a obtain
trial before a jury. This was the anomilous—he had
,almost said degraded—position in which a men was ,

placed who sought to be divorced from his wife. He
was obliged to lay before a jury all those feelings which
he ought to keep closely within his own heart, to prove
the injury he has sustained, and to ask for compensation
in damages. It unfortunately happened on some occa-
sions that, from the eagerness with which a husband
pursues his object, circumstances may be accumulated
together to attach suspicion to a particular party, and
that upon such foundation may be built a case of cri-
minal intercourse, which it was essential on the part of
the husband should be made clear to the jury, in order
to enable him to carry out his ultimate views. The
circumstances of such cases as the present varied ma-
terially in their extent, and in some instances the facts
were of a much more serious nature than in others.
They were now dealing with a case in which there were
no aggravating circumstances, nothing to excite any
feeling of indignation against the defendant ; no hospi-
tality violated, no friendship injured, no domestic peace,
as far as the home was concerned, invaded—nothing but
the simple case of the defendant's having, as was alleged,
indulged in a criminal intercourse with the plaintiff's
wife, on which fact the plaintiff had a right by law to
found his charge against the defendant, and to obtain the
verdict of the jury with damages. He (Sir F. Thesiger)
thought they would be of opinion that if, in the ultimate
discharge of their duty, they should find a verdict un-
favourable to the defendant, they would feel that there
were many mitigating circumstances in this case, and
that the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial da-
mages. If, as his Learned Friend, Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd, had stated, a divorce was the ulti-
mate objct of the plaintiff in bringing this action,
nominal damages would be sufficient for that purpose.
Considering himself deeply aggrieved, he had resolved
to obtain redress, and had selected the defendant for
his aim. It behoved the plaintiff, therefore, to bring
forward the most clear and cogent evidence of his guilt,
before he could expect a jury to find a verdict against
him. The jury would now see what these parties were.
The plaintiff was the illegitimate child of a brave sol-
dier, and he was left in a dependent condition, having
no means of advancing his fortunes in life. In order to
facilitate his means of getting forward, an intimacy was
effected between him and Miss Middleton, a young lady
who had been left to the care of his stepmother. The
result was, that a marriage took place under circum-
stances which reflected discredit upon those members of
the plaintiff's family who had conducted themselves in
the manner detailed in evidence. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to comment upon the evidence, and con-
te-nded that there was no proof that the adultery bad
been committed by the defendant ; but that if the jury
should be of the contrary opinion, the plaintiff was not
entitled, under all the circumstances of the case, to more
than the smallest amount of damages.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the case,
The jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff—Da
in ages, 501.

December 17.
(Sittings at Westminster.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and Mr. Justice MAULE.

DAVIS V. LOWNDES.-TRIAL AT EAR.

This cause, the last writ of right to be 'lied under the
old state of the law, was fixed for trial this morning at
Westminster. The Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Williams, having been enraged as counsel in the cause,
which has been going on for fourteen years, did not sit,
so that the bench was reduced to the two judges named
above. The peculiarity of this mode of trial, now at an
end, is, that the sheriff of the county from whence the
cause proceeds, selects four knights of the shire, as the
jury in the case, who choose twelve recognitors to sit
with them, making sixteen in all. The functions
of this jury do not differ materially from
those of our special jury, being eropannelled to return
a verdict on the facts submitted to them as to the rights
of the party in the cause regarding the property dis-
puted, finding, according to the preponderance of evi-
dence on the one side or the other a verdict for demand-
ant or the tenant in possession.
In thp present cause the demandant is Eliz ibeth
Davis, and the party in possession Wm. Selby Lowndes,
of Whaddon Hall, Buckinghamshire. The claimant to
the property is a lady in moderate circumstances, resid-
ing in Pembrokeshire, and the tenant in possession a
gentleman of extensive property. There have already
been two trials, and the present was arranged as a final
trial of strength.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Sergeant Bylrs were
for the dmandant; Mr. Martin and Mr. Sergeant
Channel for the tenant.

On the call of the jury only three knights appeared,
one of the four having died, since they were selected.
Elch knight, as required in this form of trial, was girt
with a sword. Five recognitors having been selected,
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said he was happy to in-
form the Court that yesterday an arrangethent had been
come to which would put an end to the case, and avoid
a tedious and protracted investigation. It had been
agreed with the claimant to the property to allow a ver-
dict for the tenant in possession, in consideration of some
compensation which the defendant had consented to
give; not because the defendant considered his title in
the least degree in danger, but because the claimant was
in poor circumstances, and thought she had a good claim
to the property, and to save a course of litigation that
might last seven years longer.
Under the direction of the Court, and with the con-
sent of counsel on both sides, a verdict was returned,
finding that the defendant Lowndes had a better right
to the estates in question than the claimant Davis.
The Court then broke up.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 17..
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BonenELL.)
NICHOLSON AND ANOTHER V. WALKER.

The plaintiffs in this action are carpet manufacturers
in Holborn, and the defendant is a house decorator in
Black friars-road. The claim was for 71. 2s. 5d , for
gods sold. The defendant had pleaded that he was
not indebted, but a judge's order was now put in, re•
quiring him to admit his handwriting to a letter sent to
the plaintiff, in which he acknowledged the debt, and the
excuse he made for non-payment was a heavy loss by
the severe storm a few months since.
The plaintiff's attorney said the object of putting in
the sham plea was to obtain time, and put the plaintiffs
to additional expense.
The jury gave a verdict for the am•nunt claimed.
GREEN V. HAIG.

This was an action brought to recover the stun of 8/,
for work and labour done for the defendant, who pleaded

hat he was not indebted.

The plaintiff is a carpenter in Seymour-p'.ace, and de-
fendant is a smith and engineer. In February, 1845,
he went to plaintiff and took a smith's shop, of which
plaintiff was tenant. Defendant said at the time that he
was taking it for a person named Medhurst, but after he
got possession of the premises he said that he was in
reality the person who was to carry on the business, al-
though the name of " Medhurst and Co." was over the
door. During the earlier part of the tenancy a person
of the name of Medhurst was thsre, but only acted under
the orders of the defendant, who gave orders for the
work which was now charged for, altivsugh the plaintiff
had made out the bill in the name of " Medhurst and
Co.'

Witnesses were called who proved that defendantgave
the orders, and it was contended that there was no part-
nership, and that if there had been it ought to have been
pleaded.
Mr. THOMAS said, after the evidence the defendant
would consent to a verdict, and it was accordingly re-
corded.