The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-04 00:00:00

BURT V. KELLY.

This was a case specially appointed to be taken on
ay. first day of term.
Mr. WATSON and Mr. MANISTY, for the defendant,
now showed cause against a rule for a new trial,
which had been obtained by Mr. Humfrey on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Lord Chief
Baron, before whom the case was tried.
The action was brought on an agreement, bearing
date the 31st of May, 1849, by which the defendant
g
plaintiff a piece of ground at the
corner of an
to
eded street, leading into the Vic-
torra-aHampstead-road, for the purpose of build-
ing :wo houses
on it; and in consideration of the
plaintiff's engaging to build the two houses, to be
a ie agreed
o to
let
h
completed before June, 1850, the defendant agreed to
make a temporary road from the Victoria-road along
the intended street by the 31st of September, 1849.
The breach assigned was that the defendant had never
the jury found that no further damage
w
made the temporary road. The defendant paid 51.
by the plaintiff. The misdirection
complained
of was that his Lordship said that the
plaintiff could not have sustained any damage up to
inatos
court,
sustained
a nd
the time when the houses were to be built; and that
he might have made the road himself, and then sued
the defendant for the sum which it might cost.
Mr. WATSON and Mr. MANISTY, in support of the
ruling on the first point, contended that until the
houses were completed and fit to receive tenants the
road could be of no advantage, and therefore that
its absence could cause no damage; and, as to the
that if erroneous, it had no effect on the
sveecrodnicdt point,
_ _

Mr. Huhu/tar and Mr. M. Shirrs, in support of
the rule, contended that one of the uses of the road
was to enable the plaintiff to cart materials for the
building of the houses, and that in this respect he had
been damnified by the defendant's failing to perform
his contract.

The COURT took time to consider whether the rule
should be granted.

STURGESS V. LORD CURZON.

Mr. D. KEANE applied for a rule to show cause why
this action should not be stayed, on the ground that
the subject matter of it had been referred to arbitra-
tion, which was now pending. The facts were as
follow :—A Mr. Gell, an attorney, sued Lord Curzon,
as director of a railway company, for his bill of
costs. That action, upon coming on for trial, was
referred to arbitration. Mr. Gel! afterwards became
insolvent, and upon the arbitration being proceeded
with, Lord Cranworth, then Mr. Baron Rolfe,
stayed it until security for the costs should be
given by the attorney on whose account it was
alleged that the proceedings were continued. The
present action was then commenced by the plaintiff,
who is the assignee of Gell, for the same cause. Mr.
Baron Martin at chambers stayed the faction until
the first day of term. Mr. Keane now moved for
its further stay on the ground that it was in fact the
!lame matter as that of " Gell v. Curzon," and was
brought by the attorney for his own purposes, and to
fru-trate the order of Mr. Baron Rolfe.
The COURT intimated an opinion that the assignee
could not be prejudiced by the proceedings in the
action brought by the in=olvent, but they would con-
mall Mr. Baron Martin before giving a final decision.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 3.
(BHfore Sir H. JENNER FUST.)

This was the first day of term, and the usual for-
mula was observed.

BOWEN . BOWEN.
1 V
This was an application for a divorce, promoted by
'the wife again,t the husband on the grounds of
cruelty and adultery.
Dr. JENNER, on the part of Mrs. Bowen, said he
at ould ask for a divorce on account of adultery only,
ris there appeared to him an insufficiency of proof in
the charge of cruelty.
1 Dr. HAGdARD, for Mr. Bowen, said that, under
these circumstances,
.he considered there could be no
advantage in having the facts gone into.
The
he chargeCotattTsaid of adultery said, having
ardeaudarlyl the papers, it was
was established,
ofi opinion