The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-28 00:00:00

REEVE V. DAYRELL.

The defendant is one of the sheriffs of Buckingham,
and the action was brought against him by the plaintiff,
Mr. Reeve, a cloth dealer, carrying on business i❑ Snow-
bill, for furnishing a false return to a writ of fi. fa. with
respect to the goods and chattels of a tailor named
Pater, at Stony Stratford. A distress was levied on
the effects of Pater at the instance of the plaintiff; and
the sheriff returned a reply to the writ that he bad no
effects. A few articles of furniture were on
his premises, but it appeared they had been
transferred to his brother-in-law by a bill of
sale, for a sum of money which he had advanced
to him. This was not proved to the satisfaction of the
jury, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff for
191. 165., believing the bill of sale to be a fraudulent one.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

HAIGH AND ANOTHER V. JAIINAC AND ANOTHER.

In this case, which was an action brought to recover
a certain amount of money alleged to be due to the
plaintiff, as " differences" upon the purchase and sale of
shares. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
A rule was subsequently obtained, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside.

Mr. MARTIN now appeared to show cause against the
rule then obtained.

After hearing counsel at great length on both sides,
The COURT discharged the rule, on the ground that
the plaintiff was not a sworn broker for the purpose of
transacting business connected with the purchase and
sale of shares.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
POOLEY V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.-TAE WESTERN GAS

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by Mr. Pooley, patent
weighing machine maker, of Liverpool, to recover
231. 17s. 6d. for a weighing machine furnished to the
London Western Gaslight Company, of which the de-
fendants were directors. The machine had been ordered
by Mr. Radley, who was employed by the company to
perform some chemical experiments, and who had re-
ferred plaintiff to the secretary for payment. When the
bill was sent in, the officers of the company denied that
they had authorised Radley to give the order, and the
present action was in consequence brought.
The evidence as to the authority of Radley to order
the machine was of a somewhat conflicting character.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 23/.
17s. 6d., the amount claimed.
This verdict involves several other claims which are
made against the company.

CRIMINAL -COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
John Charles Young, who was convicted last session of
stealing money from a letter, but upon whom sentence
was not passed in consequence of a point put by his
counsel, was placed at the bar, and the point having
been decided against the prisoner, he was sentenced to
be transported for fourteen years.
Mr. Richard Martin, a barrister, was indicted for an
assault on a sheriff's officer while in the discharge of
his duty.
Mr. Ballantine was retained for the prosecution, and
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Clarkson appeared for
the defence.
Dolby, a sheriff's officer, stated that he was sent to
apprehend the prisoner, who endeavoured to ezcape, and
while witness put forth his hand to detain him (in so
doing tearing the skirt of prisoner's coat) he was struck
on the head with a heavy stick, and the prisoner
escaped.
Mr. Bartlett, a surgeon, residing in Chancery.lane,
deposed to the severity of the wound, which had con-
fined the prosecutor for a fortnight in great danger, and
stated that he was not yet quite recovered from its
effects.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS addressed the fury for the
prisoner, and called Mr. Sergeant Murphy, who had
been his fellow collegian for three years, Mr. Ellis, a
barrister, and late M.P. for Newry, and Mr. Murdo
Yeung', the proprietor of The .Sun, both of whom gave
him the highest character for humanity and mildness of
disposition.
in
prisonerTe vhe evidence,
n weear,
sn Leadae
Notn
d JUDGEtGi)euGuilty
eycoarrpeai
tt
uu
frl
eanl toeedndy
,atheu
et
rfacts
ti lat
that
saottaf
the
assualt.—Sentence was deferred.

DISCHARGE OF BAIL.-Mr. iIIIDDLESTONE applied to
the Court for the discharge of the bail of Bentham
Fabian, who, with a person of the name of Faulkner,
had been indicted at the June sessions for the forgery of
railway scrip. The trial was postponed from time to
time until at last, in September, Faulkner took his trial,
and was acquitted. Fabian, on that occasion, did not
appal-, nor was he called upon, and these circumstances
Counsel thought constituted a sufficient ground for the
discharge of the bail, and for refraining from estreating
the recognizances. Ott the several occasions when the
trial was postponed the bail had been enlarged by the
Court, and to these arrangements the sureties were no
party. They, in fact, bad only engaged to produce the
prisoner in June, and of the trial in September they had
no notice.

The JUDGE thought that the only power which he
possessed was to respite the recognisances until the man
was produced, for if he did not appear they would be
clearly estreated.
Mr.. HUDDLESTONE cited several cases to show that
bail had been discharged by the Judges of Assize after
the trial had been passed over.
The JUDGE could not see that his power extended to
the entire relief of the bail ; at any rate, he could not
interfere without reference. Indeed, he believed that it
was rather a matter for the consideration of the Ex-
chequer, and he should certainly decline now to dis-
charge the bail.
Thomas Evans, a porter, aged 26, was indicted for
wounding Louisa Childs, with intent to murder her.
Air. Prendergast was retained for the prosecution, and
' Mr. Robinson appeared for the prisoner