The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-17 00:00:00

iiOUSI OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

The judges sat inthe House of Lords to-day to hear
writs of error. Some considerable delay was caused
in waiting for a deputy speaker, Lord Denman being
engaged in hearing trials in his own court, and the
Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn. Ultimately
the house appointed the Earl of Abingdon speaker pro
tern. and the business was proceeded with.

SOLARTE V. PALMER AN!) BOUCLE.

This was a writ of error brought by the plaintiffs
upon a judgment of the Exchequer, affirming a judg-
ment in the Court of King's Bench in favour of the
defendants. The only question in the case was, whe-
ther the following letter addressed to the defendant,
was a sufficient notice of the non-payment and disho-
nour of a bill of exchange, which had passed through
their hands, and had been endorsed by them.
" 17th Dec., 1825. Gentlemen,—A bill for 6831.,
drawn by Mr. Joseph Keats upon Messrs. Daniel,
Jones, and Co., and bearing your endorsement, has
been put into our hands by the assignees of Mr. J. R.
Alzedo, with directions to take legal measures for the
recovery thereof, unless immediately paid." Upon
the action brought for the recovery of the amount of
the bill, the Jury, under the direction of the Lord
Chief Justice, found a verdict for the defendant. A
Bill of Exception was tendered to the opihion of the
Lord Chief Justice, and judgment having been given
for the defendants in the Court of King's Bench, a
writ of error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber.
That Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
King's Bench, and from that decision the present writ
of error was brought.
Mr. F. Pollock and Mr. Richards appeared as coun-
sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Whateley for the de-
fendant. _ _ _

The JUDGES, without hearing the latter gentleman,
stated their opinion to be that the letter was not a
sufficient notice of the non-payment and dishonour of
the bill.
The effect of this will be to affirm the judgment of
the Court below i but as no law lord was present to
advise their lordships to pronounce that judgment, tlr'
further consideration of the rase was adjourned.

RICKETTS V. LEWIS.

Upon this case being called on, •
Mr. VICKERY, the agent for the plaintiff, appeared
at the bar, and stated that no Counsel were in-
structed on behalf of the plaintiff, but he had a
petition-.to be presented on his behalf, stating certain
points which he prayed might be submitted to the
judges, as it would have the effect of materially
shortening the case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who appeared for the
defendant, trusted that their lordships would affirm
the judgment of the Court of King's Bench with
costs. The proceedings in this case were the most
vexatious he had ever witnessed, and at the present
moment the plaintiff, instead of appearing to support
his assignment of errors, had presented the preposter-
ous petition which their lordships had just heard.
Mr. VICKERY could assure their lordships that his
client, in the course he had pursued, had not aban-
doned his case. _ _

The House affirmed the judgment: of the Court
below, with 100/. costs.
The case of the King v. Trafford was postponed
sine die, and the house, shortly before twelve o'clock,
adjourned during pleasure.

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat at Lincoln's Inn at ten
o'clock this morning.

ATTORNEY• GENERAL V. SHORE.

Mr. COOPER- asked whether it was his Lordship's
intention to hear this appeal, which related to Lady
Hewley's Charity, next Wednesday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether the par-
ties had considered his proposal of taking it at once to
the House of Lords.

Mr. COOPER was afraid they would not be able to
agree to his lordship's suggestion. They had had
many consultations but had been able to come to no
other resolution than that of bringing it on before his
Lordship.
The Solicitor for the relatives said that his clients
were quite willing to take it to the House of Lords
at once.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then said, that if the par-
ties did not consent to adopt the course that he had
suggested, he should call in the assistance of two
otherlearned Judges to hear the appeal argued on this
day week.

LOVEGROVE V. NELSON.—AHSENCE OF COUNSEL.
Upon this appeal being called on by the registrar,
the solicitor for the appellant stated that Mr. Soli-
citor-General and Mr. Ching, who were counsel for
the appellants, were not in court, and that he hoped
his lordship would allow it to stand over.
The LORD CDANCELLOR—Not here ! I am here,;
and the consequence of their not being here will be
that it will be struck out.

The Solicitor—I trust your Lordship will not do
that.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Indeed I shall though ;
lam bound to do justice between the parties. Are
the counsel on the other side here ?

Mr. TRESLOVE—Yes, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—DO you go on first, or
them? •

Mr. TaEsLovE—They are the appellants and the
plaintiffs. It is an appeal from the whole decree, and
We are for the defendant.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Oh, then, they must go
on, of course. I will go into my private room for a
few minutes; but is. there anything else that can be
brought on ?
Mr. COOPER said he believed the parties were not
ready in the other appeals, it having been under-
stood that his lordship would not sit until next week.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Oh, I beg your pardon,
I distinctly stated I should sit here to-day, and that I
would take Lovegrove v. Nelson.

His LORDSHIP then ;ent;;;-Of court, stating that
he would return in five minutes.

EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION.-REMOVAL OF A COM

MISSIONER.

Upon his Lordship's returning into court, a female,
rather decently attired, and who appeared to be about
,arty years of age, stepped forward and stood before
ois lordship in front of the bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII ma'am, what's your
Pleasure ?
Applicant—Your lordship, I believe, has the power
to remove Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque from his
office of Commissioner, and I wish you to exercise it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What for?

Applicant—Why, my lord, if you don't, the creditors
will never get their money while he remains Qom-
nussioner.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—There must be some mis-
take about this, for he is one of the ablest and most
experienced Commissioners of the whole lot; but I
have no power to remove him. You must go to the
House of Commons, they sit from 12 o'clock till 3,
and I believe they also meet again at 5 o'clock in the
evening.
Applicant—Thank you, my lord.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—They have the power to
remove him, and the House of Lords also has the
Power. You can go to either House.
The applicant then bowed to his lordship, and with-
drew.

LOVEGROVE V. NELSON.
Mr. CHING, who had by this time arrived in court,
aPPlied to his lordship to allow this case to stand over
till the Solicitor-General could be present, who was
then engaged in a cause in the Court of Exchequer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I cannot come here to do
nothing. You must go on, -Mr. Ching.
Mr. Cnixo—l should be very sorry to do so in the
absence of my learned leader. Your lordship will
recollect that the reason it stood over before was, that
it Wa3 a question of contract between the Postmaster-
General and the Mail contwtor.
The Loan CHANCELLOR-What was your client
doing, that he did not inform the Solicitor-General of
the arrangement that was made ?
Mr. CnING—I dare say my client knew no more
*out it than I did.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Nobody could suppose I
Would sit here and have nothing to try. This is the
~.,eond time I have come into Court without anything
~do. Mr. Ching, I really cannot help it. You
'Cues go on. (A pause.) Now just tell me, Mr.
;sung, whether your understanding really was that
Ins not to come on to-day ?
'n.l% Cnizio—l can assure your lordship that I had
not the least idea of its coming on to day.
dered
Tilet
to Lo
bye CHANCELLOR said he bad expressly or-
was anything else
put in the paper for to day, but if 'there
take it. that he could go on ssith he would
..The counsel in the next appeal of Angel v.
tombe, which wit, West-
Csittrt, the fFther ar Part
heard, having come into
(Plums in it we,se proceeded with;

COURT or KING'S BENCH-THIS DAY.

(Before the Lord CHI r.: JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
THE KING V. LORD TF.YN HAM, AND ANOTHER.
This case has been 1:-.r some time before the public.
Our readers will recollect that the noble defendant,
with a Mr. Donlan, a tailor, were indicted for a con-
spiracy to defraud a Mr. Dedimus Langford of a sum
of 1,3001., under the pretence of obtaining for him a
situation. The defendants were found guilty, and a
rule for a new trial having been subsequently moved
for and obtained, the case now came on again for
trial.
When the case was called, no counsel or witnesses
appeared for the prosecution.
Lord DENMAN, addressing the Jury, said, as there
was no prosecution in this case they must find the de-
fendants not guilty.
The Jury returned a verdict accordingly.
" THE OLD ENGLISH GENTLEMAN."—DEWAR V. PURDAY•
The case occupied the Court the entire of yester-
day. It was an action brought by the director of
music of the Theatre Royal,- Edinburgh, against a
music-seller in Holborn, for pirating the air of this
popular song. Sir George Smart, Messrs. Attwood,
Bishop, Cramer, T. Cooke, Moschelles, Dr. Carnaby,
and other eminent composers and publishers of music,
were examined.
The jury not being able to agree, were locked up
all night ; and at half-past ten this morning his Lord-
ship directed them to be called into Court, and said
he regretted that they could not agree, but as there
were some very doubtful circumstances attending the
case, he thought the course he was about to take was
the most correct one—he would nonsuit the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was accordingly called, and the jury
were discharged.
Shortly afterwards the Attorney-General came into
Court, and said he understood*, with some surprise,
that his lordship had nonsuited his client in the case
beard yesterday.
Lord DENMAN—The case is over now.
not here.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I submit, my lord, that a
judge can't order the plaintiff to be nonsuited under
these circumstances. I should have no objection to
the jury being discharged.
Lord DENMAN-In strictness the plaintiff should
have been nonsuited, as you were not here. lam
inclined to think it was wrong in not nonsuiting him
yesterday.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That's quite another
matter, but I contend, my lord, that a judge cannot
nonsuit.

You were

Lord DENMAN-1 don't want to argue it now—you
will of course move for a new trial.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-But we shall have to
pay heavy costs. I think such a course is quite un-
precedented.
Lord DENMAN. (with warmth)—l won't argue it
now—the case is disposed of.

THE KING V. E. J. SYLVESTER.
This was an indictment fo'r the misappropriation or
embezzlement of a sum of money intrusted to the de-
fendant. The prosecutor, Mr. Burgis, an attorney,
was employed by a Mr. Cliff to pay 2,3401., the
purchase money of an estate sold under a decree of the
Court of Chancery, into the Accountant-General's
office on his account. Mr. Burgis enclosed the money
to the defendant, an attorney residing in London, and
requested him to pay it as directed, which was not
done, and, after considerable delay Mr. Burgis came
to town, and obtained about 3001. from the defendant,
with a promise that the rest should be paid in a short
time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. FOLLETT ap-
peared for the prosecution, and Mr. ADOLPHUS for the
defendant:
After the examination of several witnesses,
Mr. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and contended that, in point of law, the defendant was
entitled to.an acquittal, the written direction sent with
the money not having been in compliance with the
terms of the statute. The defendant might be civilly
responsible, but he contended that he was not crimi-
nally so.
His LORDSHIP briefly addressed the Jury, who, after
a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty.