The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-27 00:00:00

frain from so doing. He hoped that the solicitOts on
L.;tl sides would, in framing their
mind that the real question in the case which he had to
decide was what was the best course to be pursued to
secure the happiness and welfare of the young lady, and
would therefore refrain from introducing extraneous
matter, and making the court the arena of polemical

strife.
Mr. P. WOOD said that he and those who instructed
him were extremely obliged to his Lordship for the
trouble which he had taken in the matter, They
were desirous that the young lady's wishes should be
consulted, and that they should be really and truly.ber
own wishes, and therefore they were doubly anxious
that she should be placed on some neutral ground until
a definitive decision could be come to. He should be
quite ready to accede to the course which his Lordship
had marked out, and with regard to the second point of
the petition, the removal of Dr. Doyle, he should
certainly desire the matter to be heard in open court.
The further hearing of the petition was thenadjourned
until Saturday.
The name of the lady selected by his Lordship WAS
handed down to the bar, but for obvious reasons we for-
bear to mention it.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
HOOPER AND ANOTHER V. THORMOOD.
The plaintiffs in this action are wine merchants in the
City, and the defendant is the landlord of the Bush Inn,
Farnham. The claim was for 421. 17s. 11d. for duties
paid on brandies supplied to the defendant.
Defendant suffered judgment to go by default; it was
therefore only necessary to prove the amount due.
Mr. Hudson, a clerk in the plaintiffs' service, was
called, and proved that they cleared out brandies
.for
defendant in November, 1850, the duties amounting
to 421. 17s. 11d., on which sum plaintiffs claimed interest,
the amount not having been paid at the end of the month,
according to the custom of the trade. Witness pro-
, duced some letters, but had never seen the defendant
write; he had acted upon the orders in them.
The plaintiffs' attorney put another letter in the Inti?ds
of the witness, who pronounced that also to be genuine
to the beat of his belief.
The plaintiffs' attorney said that it was only received
this morning, and contained a remittance.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that was a verythe substantialin-
proof, and asked what verdict was asked for, as
hown
terest could not be claimed unless the custom was s
to have been within the defendant's knowledge.
The plaintiffs' attorney said he must take a verdict for
onl
the whole amount, as the remittance was yin
the i half
notes, and it was not easy for the jury to de
verdict.
The jury then gave a verdict for the amountd claimaent
d,
and interest from the date of a letter from efend
offering to pay the same in consequence of not being abto
to meet his engagement.
This was the only case tried.
Th UNDER,SHERIFF said he could not keep the jnror.
in wait ing, and struck the other causes out of the list.

- -
MARLBRO'-STREET-(THIS DAY.)
A ,SMASHER.—Henry Warren was placed before Mr.
Bingham, charged with uttering a counterfeit crown piece.
Mary Ann Hall, the keeper of a china and earthen.,
ware shop, 45, Tottenham court-road, deposed that abamoue
t
four o'clock on the previous afternoon, the prisoner c
into her shop and asked for a half-dozen plat es at fifteen-
pence a dozen. She packed them up for him, and he
tendered the coin produced in payment. Directly ebe
felt it she was satisfied it was a counterfeit, but to
'slake
sure she sent her shop-boy to a neighbour to ask his
opinion. In a few moments her boy returned a
with a
satiP
constable, and the prisoner, who could not give
crown
factory account as to the possession of the base
piece, was given in charge.
The prisoner, who said he must have taken the bee?
coin in the street, in payment for some vegetables he ha
.
sold, was remanded for the attendance of the Min'
solicitor.