The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

27th of October, 1845, under a similar agreement,
Gardner advancing 2,000/. upon them. The agreement
by which he was to advance 3,0001. more on these
shares, in No. 1772, was dated the 22d of October, and
stated that the money should be paid in sums cf 1,0001.
each, the last instalment to be paid on the 18th of No-
vember. The shares fell in value, and 1,000/. remained
unpaid. The plaintiff sought to recover the money for
which they were sold, but the defendant contended that
the transaction was carried to• the general account.
The Learned Counsel held that the defendant was
liable for the difference. A fiat was issued against
Pierce and Howman on the 27th of December, and
Gardner satisfied all the claims which Pierce could make
upon him. Evidence was given at the trial that, at the
time of these negotiations, the firm was in an insolvent
state. Arrangements were made with the firm of Messrs.
Gardner, in New York, by which a settlement of their
accounts was brought about. Therefore, he contended
that, on the 22d of December, before the fiat was issued,
a complete settlement of the goods account between the
parties was brought about, and that a settlement of their
share account was also made. The Learned Judge at
the trial stated that this wonld be an answer to the
action, provided the transaction was a bona fide one, and
provided Gardner had no notice of the acts of bank-
ruptcy. The jury after being out several hours, re•
turned into Court, when the foreman said that there was
no direct evidence of the defendant having had any
knowledge of the act of bankryptey, and inquired if
they were therefore bound to find fur the defendant.
Mr. Justice Cresswell said they Were not, but they must
look at the surrounding circumstances. They found for
the plaintiff. He grounded his application first on the
misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge, in reply-
ing to the question, and that on the evidence the jury
ought to have found for the defendunt.
Lord DENMAN granted a general rule.
----------

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Lord DENMAN intimated that the special paper would
not be taken until after term, but that the Crown cases
would be proceeded with in their natural course.
The new trial paper will be taken on Tuesdays and
Fridays.
LUNAR AND CALENDAR MONTIL—SIMPSON V. BURGER-
ION ♦ND OTHERS.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict which the plaintiff had obtained in this
case should not be entered for the defendant. The plain-
tiff is an auctioneer in the city of London, and the de-
fendants devizees of an estate in Norfolk. They em-
ployed the plaintiff to sell the estate, agreeing to pay
him cne per cent. on the purchase money
if sold by auction and within two months
after so employing him, and one and a half per cent.
if not sold by auction, or within two months after, at
the reserved price. The property was not sold by auction,
and the plaintiff claimed 4251., but the defendants
refused to pay him more than 225/. 55., as they sold the
estate slightly over two lunar months, and less than two
calendar months.

The Court granted the application.
THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAM COBBETT.
It will be recollected that Mrs. Cobbett applied to this
Court on the first day of term to exercise its authority
to obtain the liberation of her husband, Mr. William
Cobbett, from the Queen's Bench, where he is confined,
in pursuance of a writ issued by the Court of Exci e-
quer of " rebellion," or disobeying the injunctions of
that Court.

Lord DENMAN, oberving Mrs. Cubbett in the Court,
said she had urged in support of her application that the
writ on which her husband was committed was not pro-
perly issued, and the return writ irregular and false.
Her statement was not, however, supported by affidavits;
but even if her representations were borne out, the Court
could not interfere with the proceedings of the Exche-
quer in the matter. If there was ttnything wrong, ap-
plication should be made to the Court of Exchequer to
rectify it. The Court could not, therefore, entertain her
application.
Mrs. Cobbett then retired.

131 IL COURT, Am 4.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
PEACOCK V. SWINDLE.
Mr. TEMPLE applied for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given for the defendant in this case should not be
set aside, Ist, on the ground that the verdict was against
the evidence, and the personal misconduct of the jury,
2ndly, that the deputy-sheriff had refused evidence on
the part of the plaintiff, and 3dly, on the ground that
the deputy-sheriff bad permitted the case to be con-
ducted in an improper manner.
The action was tried at Middleham, in Yorkshire.
The account was for 5/. ss. for sacks which had been
delivered containing flour. The defendant pleaded, Ist,
numquam indebitatus, 2dly, payment, end 3dly, that
sacks had been delivered in exchange. The cause was
tried at a public house, and both before and after the
trial the defendant's attorney treated the jury to spirits,
Bce., and although not a word of the evidence went to
support the defendant's pleas, the verdict was given in
his favour.—Rule granted.