The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 21.

Their Lordships took the special paper this morning, bui
nothing was elicited of any interest to tha public.
TUESDAY.
HEARNE V. TURNIR.

Sir T. WILDS was heard this morning in support of a rule
applied for in last term in this case, on the grounds of sur-
prise, and the improper admission of evidence. It is a bill
discountingwas
stried
at affair, and
oannddonthe i
tftaicntgssaraet
Guildhall,ho t Iytl
aesef.ter Trinity
erincaitsye
term, before Mr. Justice Erie, in an action to recover two
promissory notes, amounting together to 1,100/., alleged to
be the property of the plaintiff. These notes, it appears, were
drawn by a gentleman named Mytton, whose con-
nexion with bill discounters has ere now several
times met the public eye. lir. Mytton went with
the notes in question to a person represented to
be a bill-discounter, and passing by the name of Smith,
where he left the notes in order to be discounted. He called
next day, when he learned that Smith had left; that a
brass plate on which the name was engraved was removed;
and that the notes were in his possession. The notes were
subeequently negotiated, and after some time came into the
hands of the Oaintiff. Under these circumstances Mr.
Mytton employed Mr. Turner, an attorney, and that gentle-
man by means of a stratagem recovered possession of the
notes. The plaintiff then commenced proceedings to recover
the notes from Turner. The principal question raised by the
pleadings was, whether the notes were really the property of
the plaintiff, or whether he had received them without a
consideration. After a long trial, in which, judging from
the evidence adduced, the plaintiff had got the notes into
his. possession without advancing any money for them, a
verdict for the defendant was returned; •and hence

which u
nwe
xa was e
est teidpipyo rat
de d.
by the allegations
thethe motion for t h
at presentevidence
l ,
had been
•cluced which the plaintiff had not an opportunity of re-
butting, and that the evidence to given was improperly re-
ceived by the Court. Oa Saturday last Mr. Sergeant Slice
was beard at length in support of the verdict of the jury, and
to-day Sir Thomas Wilde was heard in reply.
The Learned Gentleman on behalf of the plaintiff main-
tained that he had given consideration for the bills, not out
of his own means, but by borrowing ‘of certain parties whom
he had named, and into the truth of which the fullest scru-
tiny had been invited ; and that the evidence adduced by the
defendant was of such a character as to have lead Mr. Hearne
to proceed against certain parties for perjury in the case. The
Learned Gentleman here went into a number of facts in rela-
tion to two of the witnesses, from which it would appear they
had been connected with proceedings that rendered there
evidence if not absolutely false, at least highly suspicious;
and 'that the plaintiff had not had a fair opportunity of
bringing these objections out upon the 'trial.
The Court were of opinion that at common law the testi-
mony of Mitton was admissible, but if any doubt existed it
was entirely removed by the modern statutes on the subject.
—Rule discharged.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Jan. 21.
(Before Mr. Secondary PorrEn.)
MEADOWS V. GARDINER.
This was an action to recover the balance of an account
for work and labour. The defendant had pleaded that he was
not indebted.

The facts of the case were very simple. The witnesses for
the plaintiff proved the work was done, and its value to
be 211. ss. 3d. The plaintiff, however. emitted the receipt
of a portion.
The Si cQNDA ft r said he did not see how the jury could
glYe a verdict for less than the whole. The plaintiff had
been drivn to produce evidence, and the jury were, in his
(minion, bound by that evidence.
The jury, after a slight hesitation, gave a verdict for the
full amount.

Mr. John O'Connell, M.P., has a " Life of his
Father" in the press, with his speeches.
When any great and predominant passion xules the
heart of man, all the others are submissive to it. Thus, in
a covetous mind, if avarice be the prevailing passion, love
must give way, purely to avoid the expenses it may cause,
in its pursuit and gratification; whereas, on the contrary,
when love is the reigning passion, even avarice itself will be
converted into profuseness.