The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-17 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

HOOPER AND ANOTHER V. TREFFRY.
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
sample was accordingly sent to a friend of his, residing
in 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 pct.-
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 tens 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 would reserve
that point.
Mr. CROWDER then contended that the cargo was
originally equal to sample, and proceeded to call wit-
nesses.
It appeared, however, from the cross-examination of
one of them, that the sample originally sent up was not
of the same quality as the cargo.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
sum claimed.

COMMON PLEAS_AS-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Westminster.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and Mr. Justice MAULE.)
DAVIS V. LOWNDES.--TRIAL AT BAR.
This cause, the last writ of right to be tried 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 eur special jury, being empannelled 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 the present cause the demandant is Elizabeth
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 Byles were
for the demandant; Mr. Martin and Mr. Sergeant
Channel for the tenant.
On the call of the jury only three knights appeared,
oce of the four having died, since they were selected.
Each 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 arrangement 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.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
NICHOLSON AND ANOTHER V. WALKER.

The plaintiffs in this action are carpet manufacturers
in Holborn, and the defendant is a house decorator in
Blackfriars-road. The claim was for 71. 2s. 5d , for
goods 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 amount claimed.
GREEN V. HAIG.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 8/.
for work and labour done for the defendant, who pleaded
that he was not indebted.

The plaintiff is a carpenter in Seymour-place, 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 there, but only acted under
the orders of the defendant, who gave orders for the
work which was now charged for, although 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.