The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-11 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

DALE V. CIIAMBERS.
Mr. HORRY moved for a rule nisi for writ of prohibi-
tion, restraining the Judge of the Palace Court from
proceeding further in this case. The action was origi-
nally instituted in the Southwark County Court, where
judgment was obtained against the defendant, and an
execution was issued against his goods, but it was dis-
covered that the defendant had no goods within the
jurisdiction of the Court. Instead, therefore of suing
out a summons to bind the defendant to pay the debt by
instalments, the plaintiff brought an action upon the
judgment in the Westminster Palace Court, but the
County Court Act provided that the judgment of the
County Court Judge should be final, and it was clear
that this second action was contrary to the spirit of
the Act.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said, it appeared to him that
the Legislature did not intend by the term " final" to
preclude a plaintiff from suing upon the judgment, but
simply that there should be appeal against the decision
of the County Court. However, as this was the first
time the point had been raised, the Learned Counsel
might take a rule.—Rule

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner EveNs.)
IN RE THOMAS WOOD.

This bankrupt (late alderman), described as of Corbet-
court, Fenchurch-street, came up for his certificate,
which had been suspended.
The bankrupt, it will no doubt be remembered, 'was
connected with the Talacre Mining Company, by which
he suffered great loss. He had also gone to great ex-
pense in contesting the mayoralty. No opposition was
offered by the assignees or creditors; but his Honour
considered that the expenditure had been excessive, and
therefore adjourned the certificate for three months,
which period having now expired, the certificate ws,
granted.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
CROWN ExrENT.—This morning a Crown extent was
executed at the office of the Sheriff of Middlesex to as-
certain in what amount John Lamont, of Broad-street,
Radcliffe, distiller, was indebted to the Crown for Excise
duties in respect of spirits manufactured between the
14th of April last and 11th May inst.
Mr. W. Goodall, collector of Excise, was called, and
proved the amount due to be 7.5461. 10s.
The UNDER•SHERIFF said that it was a very large
sum for such a short period.
Mr. Goodall said it was not a very extraordinary sum.
A verdict was given for the above amount.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL)
HAINES V. BUCKTON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a lodging-
house keeper, to recover the sum of 171. 10s. for board
and lodging.
It was proved that the defendant agreed to pay 551.
aA
per annum. He was a lodger for four months, when Le
quitted without paying.
A verdict for the sum claimed.
G°YslEttv.ns, D
N R
This was an action to recover
damages
for breach of
contract. The plaintiff was a schoolmaster Stoke
Suffolk, and claimed 41. l6s. in lieu
of the defendant's intention to
withdrawof a quarter's notice
plaintiff's school. On thepart
his son. from
of the plaintiff it was
shown that a prospectus of the terms had been sent to
defendant
, and a letter was written upon 't i .
Mr. THO
!us, for the defendant, d quote 0, cats o