The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-15 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, DEC. 13.

PARKER V. LLOYD.
Mr. COOPER had to make a very novel motion in this
cause under two recent Acts of Parliament, the 2d Wil-
liam IV., c. 33, and the 4th and sth William IV., c. 82.
The first Act authorised service of process in all suits con-
cerning lands situate in England or Wales, or in Ireland, to
be made upon any defendants resident in any part of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Isle of
Man ; and the second Act extended the provisions of the
former Act to any suit concerning incumbrances upon land,
or concerning money vested in the public funds or public
shares in public companies ; and to any defendant resident
out of the United Kingdom. This very important altera-
tion was scarcely known to the profession, as the Act was
only passed last August. Under the former Act his
Honour held in M'Master v. Lomax that service might be
made upon a defendant in Scotland. The late Lord Chan-
cellor, however, refused to extend the benefit of the Act to
such a case. The present suit relates to a considerable
sum of trust money in the funds ; and in anticipation of it
the two defendants have removed out of the jurisdiction.
One of them, Macintosh, is resident in Edinburgh ; and
the other, Lloyd, is a man who has taken a lead in the
fashionable circles at Naples. The object of the motion
was to obtain an order for service of subpwna on these
defendants.
His HONOUR having examined the Act, said it directed
service abroad, but did not supply the Court with officers
to execute its commands. But if the person making the
service were to return to this country and make the affi-
davit here, he did not see why that would not do.
Mr. COOPER was anxious to make this motion to-day, as
he understood a King's messenger was going to Naples
this evening, and that he would produce the proper affida-
vits required by the Act in the course of the day. Perhaps
the messenger would under the service.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—YOU may take the order for
service.

During this motion Sir EDWARD SUGDEN observed that
some most serious Acts were passed in August last, of
which the profession had not the slightest intimation, and,
amongt others, an Act enabling English trustees to commit
a breach of trust by lending money on mortgages in Ireland.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 13,

REECE V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.

This was an action for an assault and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff, Mr. George Reece, was the son of the late
Dr. Reece, who established the Egyptian Hall. The de-
fendant Taylor was a brother-in-law of the plaintiff, and
executor of the late Dr. Reeoc's will, and the other de-
fendant was Mr. Wyburn, the Barrister, who had an in-
terest in the deceased's estate, which was insolvent, as
trustee of some infant creditors. The plaintiff and a brother
of his had been retained by the executors at a salary of
30/. per annum each, with their board and lodging, to
manage the chemist and druggist business, left by their
father at the Egyptian Hall ; but in consequence of some
dissatisfaction of the defendant Taylor with tho plaintiff's
accounts he was dismissed, but after some time he returned
to the shop and insisted upon retaining possession of it as
his. In June last the two defendants went to the shop to
turn out the plaintiff, and after some squabbling and
scuffling, in the course of which the defendant Taylor used
very violent language, the plaintiff was given into the cus-
tody of a policeman, on a charge of assaulting Taylor, and
taken to the police office at Marlborough-street.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 50/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 13.

WOOD V. LANE AND CLAYTON.

This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff was a flannel-draper in Castle-street, Holborn.
Clayton was a person in the same business, and Lane was
an attorney's clerk. Wood and Clayton had had dealings
together, and Wood became indebted to Clayton. On one
occasion, when Wood was in the shop of a person named
Saunders, in Holborn, Clayton came in and demanded the
money that Wood owed him. Wood was not prepared at
that moment to pay the debt, and requested Clayton to
call at his house ; on which Clayton said, " Oh ! very well ;
then I shall arrest you—l have an officer outside." Lane
was then introduced, and affected to take him into custody.
Lane represented himself as Selby, the sheriff's officer,
and Clayton and Lane went away with the plaintiff in the
direction of Chancery-lane. When they arrived at the
plaintiff's house the plaintiff said be would send to Mr.
Harmer, his attorney, when he discovered that there had
been no arrest, for that Mr. Selby knew nothing of the
matter.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 10/.
The Cur JUSTICE said that this ought to be a warning

to the defendants. Had there been reglitatitie; Mid bad
death ensued, it would have been murder.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—DEc. Is.