The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

FLANDERS V. SIR li. I3UNBURY.
The arguments in this part heard ease were continued
this morning, and were not concluded at the rising of
the Court.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.),

EDKINS V. WILSON.-ASSAULT UPON A PROCESS SERVER.

In this case the plaintiff sought to recover compensa-
tion in damages for an alleged assault committed by the
defendant upon him. The plaintiff (formerly an omnibus
conductor) was employed by attorneys to serve writs,
and about the Bth of May had occasion to serve a copy
of a writ upon the defendant, who carried on business as
a publican, in Old-street. St. Luke's. Accordingly
about eleven o'clock of the above day he proceeded to
the house of the defendant, and left the copy of the writ
upon the counter of his shop, and having done so he
left the house. Upon his doing so the defendant fol-
lowed, and while crossing the road knocked the plaintiff
down with his fist, by which he was severely injured.
Several witnesses were called by Mr. Sergeant JONES
(who appeared for the plaintiff) in support of these
statements.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, on the part of the defendant, con-
tended that his client was not guilty of the charge. The
action on which the writ had been issued was settled
some days prior to the time of the attempted service of
it by the plaintiff, and that he insisted upon serving
the writ notwithstanding his having been informed that
the action was settled.

One of the witnesses called on the part of the defence
said that the plaintiff had offered to give the writ up to
any person on payment of 55., that being the sum he
was to have for the service of it upon the plaintiff.
A. policeman who was present at the time of the
alleged assault, said that the plaintiff was not sober at
the time, and that he took off his coat and wanted to
fight ; upon which he was told by the witness that unless
he went away quietly he must take him to the station-
house and lock him up. No blow was struck by the de-
fendant while he was there.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up, the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.

PIDDOCK V. FITZGERALD, RART.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
ney, to recover from the defendant, Sir John Fitzgerald,
Bart., the sum of 601. Os. 4d., due to him for professional
services rendered by him en bahalf of the London and
Manchester Direct Railway. The defendaat was a
member of the acting committee of management of the
railway in question.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
601. 93. 4d.

CROCRFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.
This was an action brought by Sarah Frances Crock-
'ord, the executrix of the late well-known Mr. Crock-
ford, to recover the sum of 961. due by the defendant for
subscriptions and entrance money, and also fur dinners
and wines supplied to his use by the plaintiff; at
Crockford's Club House, Pall-mall. The defendant had
paid into Court the. sum of 371. 17s. 6d., and pleaded as
to the residue that he was not indebted, and as to the
remainder that the house in question was a common
gaming-house, and that therefore he was not entitled
to pay.
Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Reeve. appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. James for the defendant.
Mr. flumrunv, in opening the case, said that the club
in question was projected in the year 1824, that it
including
some of four or five hundred persons,
some of the highest and most respected portions of the
nobility. Lord Maidstone was elected a. nit saber the
club in the year 1810, the subscription money was
ten guineas a year, tin' the entrance fee was ten guineas.
A large sum was also due for dinners and wine supplied
to his Lordship at the club, and also to a house in Bol-
ton-street, at the residence of a lady with whom his
With Lordship was upon the most intimate terms. re-
ference to the plea of the defendant that the club was
a common gaming house, he thought that some of the
members of the club would be rather surprised to hear
that Lord Maidstone had placed upon record
that the club kept by Crockford was a
common gaining-house, and that in this said gaming-
house Mr. Crockford " did unlawfully cause and pro-
cure certain idle and evil diApased persons to congregate
together and come to play." Among these idle and evil-
disposed persons were the Dukes of Wellington, Rich
mend, Buccleuch, Argyle; Cleveland, Rutland, and Lords
Salt,,un, Scarborough,- Stuart De Rothesay, and
numerous others. With reference to the payment
into Court of the sum of 371., that would not even
pay for his dinners and wines at the club, setting
aside the subscription-money and the entrance fee,
and he was quite at a loss to account for the present
conduct of the defendant, connected as he was with one
of the noblest families in the peerage (the Earl of Win-
chelsea), aid wondered how he could have been so mis-
led as to place upon the record such a plea as a defence
for not paying for his dinners and wines. His Lodship had
attended the club repeatedly, and had during his visits
done every thing but paid. In fact, during the whole
period of his connexion with the club he had never paid
a farthing for any thing that he had either eaten or
drank.
Several witnesses were :then called, who proved
his Lordship's attendance at the club, and the several
occasions of his dining there, from the books of the club.
The case was not concluded when the Court rose.