The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-30 00:00:00

LAPSLAY V. GRIERSON.

The further arguments in this appeal occupied their
Lordships the remainder of the morning.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncuELL.)
COLLINS V. LEWIS.

This was an action to recover the sum of 31. 15s. 4fd.
for bricklayer's work. Defendant is a lady residing in
Grosvenor-place. The work was proved to have been
done in October, 1846, but the witnesses could not speak
to having seen the defendant, but understood i❑ the
neighbourhood of the house where the work was done
(Prospect Cottage, Brompton), that it was kept by a
Mrs. Lewis. There was only a man and woman servant
in the house, and on the account being applied fur, the
servant said Mrs. Lewis was out of town.

The collector of taxes was called, and proved that the
premises were rated in the name of Emily Lewis.
On the part of the defendant, a Mr. Bolten, an attorney,
was called, and deposed that the lease of the cottage was
assigned to him in March, 1846, and that the persons re-
siding in the house were his servants. He saw plaintiff, and
gave orders for the work, and afterwards told him that the
bill was made out in the wrong name as " Mr. Lewis,"
his name was Bolden, and offered 31. 10s. He had
mortgaged the agreement for the assignment.
James Beckett proved that he was servant to the last
witness, and who sent him to get a bricklayer to do
some work at the cottage, and he went to plaintiff. Mrs.
Lewis was not living there at that time, or up to March,
when Mr. Bolden let the house. He was formerly in
the service of Mrs. Lewis, but was not transferred with
the lease.—(Laughter.)
Mr. TnomAs contended that the tradesmen were not
cognizant of the transfer; and Mr. Bolden had been in the
habit of visiting the defendant for fifteen years, and
occasionally residing at the house for days.
The jury retired for some time, and on their return
gave a verdict for plaintiff.
ELLIOTT V. VINDEN.

This was an action to recover the sum of 161. ss. 103.,
on a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that he
did not accept, but evidence was adduced to prove that
defendant had admitted the fact. A verdict was given
for the defendant.
There were three other cases undefended, each of
which was for under 201, but being writs of error four
days are allowed to apply to the Court above to deprive
the plaintiffs of costs.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS.DAY.)
Mary Ann Burton, the wife of a respectable trades-
man, was indicted for stealing a parcel from an omnibus.
A conductor, named Evans, deposed that the prisoner
was riding in his omnibus on the 27th of February, and
got •ut at the corner of North Audley•street. Just as
the vehicle was moving on, he missed a parcel out of the
left hand corner. He ran after the prisoner, and asked
her whether she had taken a parcel. She said she had
not. He pulled her cloak aside and found the missed
parcel under her arm. She was then given into custody.
Mr. Clarkson cross-examined the witness, and elicited
from him that this was the first time he had stated that
the prisoner denied having taken a parcel out of the
omnibus. The cross-examination showed some further
diserepaneies of no very material importance. The
prisoner had a parcel of her own.
The jury intimated a wish to stop the case, but as we
understand, Mr. Clarkson requested that he should be
allowed to proceed. lie called several respectable wit-
nesses, who gave the prisoner a high character fer in-
tegrity and propriety.
The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict elf
Not guilty.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
BODMIN.

The Bodrein Election Committee re-assembled this
morning; Mr. Hamilton in the chair.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAN was engaged the whole of the
morning in replying to the arguments advanced yester-
day by Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, against the allegation of
the sitting Members that the Committee possessed the
power and authority to decide whether the recog-
nizances put in by the petitioners and certified by the
examiner were good or bad in form.
At the close of his address the room was cleared, and
the Committee having consulted for a few minutes,
Strangers were re-admitted, when
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had come to the
following resolution :
"That it is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee
to decide the validity or invalidity of the recognizances."
Mr. WORDSWORTH said, since the decision the Com-
mittee came to yesterday not to adjourn till Mr. Stuart
Wortley's Bill had been passed into a law, that measure
had undergone an important alteration, which gave the
Committee the jurisdiction they had just decided they
di:l not possess • and he must, therefore', protest on be-
half of Mr. Wild against the petition being proceeded
with until that Bill had been disposed of.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE then opened the case against
Mr. Wyld, as one of want of qualification. It would
be shown that Mr. Wyld did not possess landed pro-
perty that yielded him 11001. per annum. The Hon.
Gentleman represented his qualification to consist of
lands and hereditaments, in the parish of St. James,
Westminster, and in Stockport, in Cheshire; and as
notice to produce the title deeds had been given to the
Hon. Gentleman, the onus o: proving his qualification
must rest upon him. In the event of Mr. Wyld failing
to establish his qualification, he should be prepared with
negative evidence to prove that Mr. Wyld did not possess
any property either in the parish of St. James, West-
minster, in the county of Middlesex, or in Stockport.