The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-31 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

It, TATE V. CHAMBERS.
IL, '4' was an action for false imprasontrient, brought by
so plaintiff against the defendant, a Magistrate, who had
AeNitted him for re-examination under the Pawnbrokers
eastt,',4nd Upon his being afterwards brought up for re-
tae ,oation, the defendant discharged him, finding that
4tase did not come under that Act, and consequently
fosat4 Magistrate had no jurisdiction in it. The Jury
ash' a verdict for the plaintiff. A rule having been
Part 4 on a former day, which had been obtained on the
the defendant to set aside the verdict, their Lord-
Ihtools time to consider their judgment
jos,._N morning the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the
is 'tiqent of the Court. He said that two points had been raised
tae t 4 arguments first, whether the charge made against
14' e:aintiff was really within the provisions of the Pawn-
or° I,;4:Act, and upon that question the Court were clearly
as:,,:trtion, from all the evidence that had been adduced,
P tsc[tiell had been adduced before the defendant by the
dtern I that it was not sufficient to warrant the
etesti Ptuning,' . Act; and, therefore, on
tisu on of the plaintiff under that
rule ,Point, the Court would be obliged to discharge the
p,r,:r setting aside the verdict. The other and most m-
eo 4 it point was, whether a Magistrate bad the power of
isellnta: itting
a person for re-examination, after only half
asi:l°l the case,- when, upon a charge under a penal act,
cosamtvas contended on the part of the plaintiff, a party
at Wing was bound to bring all his evidence forward
aPiriee' Upon that point the Court would give no d
was not necessary to do so, as the rule was e-
is,4'Y the opinion given on the first question.
e rule was then discharged.
snittuu• V. RUTHERFORD.
Iley, WaS an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
inr,' to recover about 71. from the defendant for profes-
a°o-411 services. It was tried before the LORD CHIEF
des,„Ps during the Sittings after last Term, as an no-
a I,;"ed cause, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. On
riewilt,!r day Mr. HUGHES obtained a rule Nisi for a
ass„;!tals on the ground that the defendant was taken by
astior:tes that he bad instructed Counsel to defend the
the case And that he had a good defence on the merits of
tlir• BUSBY to-day showed cause, and read the affidavits
ss°f 44""e Plaintiff and his two clerks, to prove that the business
done for the defendant, who had repeatedly promised to
t aht the plaintiff
N gave the Blast;defndant's attorney notice
trialhfor• the 27th ofovember
4'55 called on, and as it was late in the day the Judge
N
ered it to be taken on the 29th of November ; when it
Ivi4 brought on, no person appeared to defend it, and a
verdict passed for the plaintiff.
• 11r. HUGHES in support of the rule said be bad teen 't,?lvsn tructed to defend the action, anti that if notice had been
by the plaintiff, that it would have been brought on,
-",,,ne 29th of November, he would have defended it.
sb 'he LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the rule must be made
se:Vutes as there was evidently some mistake, and the de-
nt swore he had a defence on the merits.
441 e absolute.
THB KING V. SMITH.
hroI‘uI:i..ARCIIDOLD moved that John Smith, a prisoner, be
TiZol.) to plead to an indictment.
Pleis4dunetcotlant, who was in the Court in custody►then
Ms, A" guilty to the indictment. ,
°f ""aolla next asked the Court to fix the amount
T, L
at 801, Lo CHIEF JUSTICE thought it should be fixed
each. Per security, and two housekeepers at 40/.
Ms, A
state th Rett'l°r.n begged, before that order was made, to
davit, it,' crtatote of the ( ffence as appeared by the affi-
,Persoaatl'u r• It villa one of a most serious description
sweeps
,s twa and forgery. The defendant and his brother,
residis 4'4, had
h. en indebted to Mr. Hesse, a foreigner,
ethes, igo
the s
eountiy, and he had proceeded against
.nostori chequer. The defendant was taken into
!atilt,. 7: hi brother was served with the process; but
acti
was
prevent Mr. Hesse from proceeding in his
Upon whi",,hoo.ade a false affidavit of debt for 500/.
Upon applie
.141 r. Hesse was taken into custody ; but
bad got dikharg4,t4'" Hesse
Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Hesse
got hiabrioibtitry, lageotdefendant, finding that gentleman
soofndneteb hi,
a person named Kearsley to per-
-346/.,t Joseph Smith, and to make an affidavit
Joseph Smith's name against Mr. Hesse for
Cplaerarriefs
atwhi:(
ti davit was false. The attorney of the
iri°ero th,Q,,,,`°]_lve.d tip in the transaction, and it was
e. ft;'`e'l it that there was a conspiracy against
before
gave
notice
efendant, after he was taken into cus-
elore 111 r.
an.d upon. the bail appearirg
P"lons acne(' 'rneY stuffy, it appeared that the
the
affidavit of bail had been personated.

He (Mr. Archbold) had another application to make, vie.
that instead of being remanded to the King's Bench prison,
during the inquiries after the hail, he might be committed
to Newgate, as he had been heard to declare that he would
get a day rule and make his escape.
The LORD CHIEF JusricE said they would make no
order respecting a committal to Newgate ; but, under
the circumstances, it would be necessary for the defendant
to give security, himself in 2001., and two others in 100/.
each, and that a week's notice of the bail be given.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.