The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-16 00:00:00

,
KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

noE DEM. PARK V. ERKINGTON•
TAN,' /la% all action of ejectment tried before Mr. Justice
t_,':l'l3N, at the Northumberland Assizes, and his lord-
wrected lANsui
hoer' COLT applied to set aside the nonsuit and to
re,„" tl", trial. Wm• Orr had held possession of the
twentv and demised them to Barbara and
Zaheth Po 1'
-rnino e, tne lessors of the plaintiff, as tenants. in
against and not as joint and distinct tenants; that being
do the authorities a nonsuit was directed. The ques-
he mas Whether the case came within the statute or not,.
grkitera. Coltman contending that it did.—Rule Ni

Th
i(3°Til aNn ANOTHER V. JACOB AND ANOTHER.
byb th 3 was an action on two bills of exchange, both drawn
, e defendants, one accepted by Phillips, and the other
gas, r enton, and indorsed to the plaintiffs. The question
e
piahhether a letter addressed to the defendants by th
Thiffl, was a sufficient notice of dishonour.
the pia%
11-‘itilinferred that it was, and accordingly found for
211 r.
letter a nonsuit,
to enterHuT'c' iliNscm alied to set aside the verdict, andh
on the ground that, in point of law,t e
legal
nsestasiereio:f cdoitt
dishonour.
such explicit terms as to be a
Their Lo of
after reading the letter, held it to bea
question solely for the consideration of thejury, an,d as the
'', had been laid down by the Lord ChiefJJustice who tried the
good notice
case, and as they inferred that there was
c't dis,the verdict should not be disturbed.—Rule
rekse
, The L n CHIEF JUSTICE, after judgment had_ been
r" heTshould not have been dissatisfied had thebe
',•-rY inferredsali the other way, because there appeared to
- very slovenly way of doing business.
THE KING V. SUTTON.
Paris was an indictment against the defendant for not re-
,lsg a bridge, ratione tenure. It was tried. before Lord
tt'ief Justice Tindal at. the Derbyshire assizes, an
thl:ndant was found guilty, leave being given to apply to
pointsco.urt to enter a verdict for the defendant on several
The 'SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved, in accordance with
tl:!eriasttyoPeit.nitission, to enter a verdict for the defendant. The
was that the defendant was an infant of tender
(leant.' viz-, only eleven years of age, and there was no evi-
v Bence that he was conscious that he had the estate on
wn'eh the bridge was situated. It was quite clear that if he.
1 ere liable at eleven years old, he might be equally liable if
11',.,',.%,ere “muling and puking. in his nurse's arms." This was
q r,"inal charge, and it had been held that in no instance.
if ij?ision or corn' mission could an infant be made liable,
re,,,;•was unconscious of the offence—not even could he be
lir4 'red put in a plea. And if he were found guilty,
in could the Court inflict a fine, seeing that he was not
Possessi
Metitari on of property to pay it ? Blackstone, in.his Corn-
euted .es, laid it down that an infant could not e p
b rose-
a`ln either for omission' or commission, because he had no
utilliati,d over his own acts and could not be said to be con-
' the s' If a verdict shouldbe,entered in favour of the defendant,
oeeuPpliblie
i would not be deprived of remedy, because the
tion wer could be proceeded against. The second objec-
t aiPosses:o'ntilat the defendant was not the occupier, nor in
°ecupi„,7f,any portion of the property. The farms were
session of ~)37 tenants, and the mansion was in the pos-
' Court Chancery
mother, who was allowed an income by the
Tru„°, k-hancery for the purpose of maintaining him.
portion"le estate was his, but he had possession of no
atio_- of
it. The next objection was, that an indictment
liot
the tenure must be brought against the occupier and
eolintfl , ovyner.
Roll
Tppoq of that, objection the, learne.
sei cited Roll s Abridgement, '
gest •
Th in both of and Comyn s
which the point was clearly laid down.
torne ne objection was, that some ancient documents
,led at the time of Charles 11., when an information was
t,endgainst Lord Lexington far:in whom this estate de-
rided to the present defen t), for not repairing the
ge, were improperly received, as not compreting Lord
t'izington's case, and that from that period there was a
the of ninety years. After some further observations,
ti
e learned counsel hoped he had laid a sufficient
nda-
-1(41 for a rule Nisi for the acquittal of the defendant.
Rl,:rhliteed Court were of opinion that a rule Nisi should be

........ - -
......
DAY.)
(A)UR
T OF EXCHEQUER.—(THIS
-0.--
( ttifoatt...e LORD CHIEF BARON and Barons VAuOHAoNn
took the oaths,
his-04'ittlAms the latter of whom
+eva.tion to the bench.)
p -•
r•tAasov 5,: GRAHAM AND ANOTHER.R•
ai
it 11 t. P,
made in this caT 1 RSPORlaliednd thefor a
verdict
rwthye
plai
se, a and !ti subject to such award, should
.notonbebesehtalfasidoef,
the dere T'nsuit entered. He move4b
- the arbitrator
who h_Pdatit, upon a suggestion made }
upon,7,i felt very °Teat difficulties ir! cornlintgaptponathreeddtebcaii
.I,lrittBe,
0' tuvele:detei
the River
laid before him
tilts becameAi introrcicirarec.torTs fhoerybinuoiatldtienhgae
144.1:Zuttact with a pveerrson named Perkins fora t
art
the
14aintiivilf° again made a further sub-contractad failed to
'rtialk .„„,d'r a , all part of it. Perkins!
therefore
sued %I-7 thesiapayments to the plaintiff, who, had made
thcres4 gefendants; and contended that they the ',,'" liable by their recognition of him in
at
/;I°,l 'on -44115 r. Re proved that Graham saw
of him_im.
the fol-
'4 a , -,i, c4lO occasion, and took no notice h and ar'si();""er occasion he was looking at thewbaaridgnoet,
going
0711 tile plaintiff why it was that he
waif
of
thorl,.. • He said he could not for
at t
their
coti,ti'.. Graham then told him to call
froal i'lgThuuse and he would get some. He went
.and got
they aheill bill for 40/. He gave a receipt for it, but
it wa,"o required one from Perkins, in order to show, that
Co advance
ta:l)v_anced upon his account. The question
tfoorr
wasthe
liable
~. uaonsider was, whether the primary contractor for aii,'_'_. person with whom he had made no agreement
getiegillork done upon the subject of the contract.
doubt
case that t`i,' propos4ion, he believed there could be no
r
Was riotli,• a": was with him, and he connded that the .
'44 14 that to alter it. The learnedgentlemau