The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-10 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
Ili -

°
00

—mow— -
la IN RE LONG.
(tansy is case, which was a question relative to the goat--
8.1.1)0f a wars)._
,equiestUn.AßLES WETHERELL, at the sitt'ng of the Court,
of his rt tbat the case might stand over, in consequence
uo than
been furnished onluttlEss y yesterday morning with
400 folios of affidavits, which he had found it
sholfol,Mpossible to read over, although he devoted the
t_yesterday(Sunday) to that purpose.—(Laughter.)
ing rovet";OOPER said that he had received affidavits extend-
rDPwards of 400 folios only this morning ; he
Wetil r therefore, join with his learned friend Sir Charles
for a fe4l,ll'ain requesting the Coui t to postpone the matter
Mr.sm days'
ob °Nan, who appeared on the opposite side, had no
tijeeti". to the request of his learned friends being grant-
' and the
Y next Case was ordered to stand over till Thurs-
m,.. . WILSON V. NESS—CONTEMPT.
krtliel'ASlLYN in this ewe moved for the discharge of
from
beenist custody in the Castle at York, where she.
Pa:d a s PLaced for contempt, in consequence of not having
Learnum money which she had been ordered to do.h
hotlnd Counsel made the application upon
.t e
bill bill b 4 .that the proceedings were irregular, the original
h,,/ing, abated by the death of the successful party
llteresi.sult baying been revived by persons who bad no
!qr.
that 1i"4ANIELs opposed the application, on the ground
Niti 6. e
/non Ness could not clear her contempt until she had
u
eY•
kiised, LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the petition to be dis-
t% t observing that the application ought to have been
kquai: his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, who was well
tbe .d"`4l with the whole facts of the case, and had made
'l,lintaer complained of. It was not fair for parties to
seen it case, although he (the Lord Chancellor) had often
qber,, 4°lle. Parties came and sounded the Court, and
11',i4ta,1114made their application to that Judge whom they
"; Most favourable to them.
ossLy V. THE DERBY GAS LIGHT COMPANY.
'll °IIRT then proceeded with the further arguments
1) Is baPPeal.
course of the morning his Lordship called Mr.
f.,(A'sit"'h...43! eminent conveyancer within the Bar, his Majesty
''mien graciously pleased to appoint him one of his
\let,
"—CUANCERY COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
L°lse.„sllence of the indisposition of Sir Edward Sug-
Prkee 8 tionour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was unable to
esda)_;''itll his list of cause petitions, and rose before
lo
(411110 atsTON. having been appointed a King's Counsel
rkleetic'er to which he is pre-eminently entitled, in conse-
itsu,winiigoicuLliihriseicatgvereat knowledge as a conveyancer), was this
.d by his Honour to take his seat within the
~trataiavn nig done, t e Learned Counsel received the
"r"eat, I°lls of every Gentlemen at the Bar who was
C
Att),
41 OF KING'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
tt.
tmt PtiQ sitting of the Court this morning, ROBERT CUT-
S '‘GllBB°N, Esq.. M. P. for Kircudbright, took the
ips q,a!b as Judge Advocate General, and a member of
blr Most Hon. Privy Council.
NEW KING'S COUNSEL.
IlittSTO
NO,
and N took. his seat within the Bar as King's
d'tkat,„ Immediately afterwards moved that the im-
h'Se 17° of Doe on the demise of Lumley v. the Earl
'tritard-,°'`-ugli, be specially fixed for Friday, which was
litep-;,° by the Court.
,4613,-ANT TO PUBLICANS.—PHILPOTTS V. JONES.
d° by paj'as an action for goods sold and anddelivered,.n
tried before the Sheriff of Middlesex, and
ektAma verdict was had for the plaintiff, for the amount
,!tlr ''‘,l7/. 4s. 6d.
';(I7`iNsELL moved for a rule to show cause why
htg'61.441,7,t should not be set aside, and a new trial had onff
triiNtlia-t44niveirsddiirnetcttion on the part of the Learned Sher
„ainst evidence. The original
`lu4!tititiasesornrr_3:ll.t. 4es. 6wdasanad of this 111.8 s. 6d. was for small
V of 17,LPIrt s supplied to defendant at different times, a
4444. had been paid, and an action brought for the
b14%0 tuT Learned Counsel contended that by the
~nnaih, • I-• no action could be maintained for spirits sold
tlikt4t,quarttities than of the value of 20s. at a time,
"erefore a sum of 11/. Bs. 6d. should be deducted
ref ~e ecataount of the verdict awarded.
114 n ciuitT in giving judgment observed, that the statute
"v the Learned Counsel would hold good if no
-44-04 of the circumstances had taken place. It ap-
t: the ,Pvever that a sum of 171. had been paid previous
_
encement of the action, and as it had been d pai
r. to account, ac
li count, it was in the power of the plaintiffto
f-sed the payme of any portion of the debt he
aitiadi_ of
for
het.thd applied it to the liquidatien
es bl,y ke_ m. for spin s, whic.h he. could not otherwise
1' 41.1 Y ac,,`!‘. The application in present. case was
QNfor:4l'lst equity and justice as it was against law, and
must be refused.—Rule refused.
ille11:1 KING V SAMUEL DUNN AND OTHERS.
.0
4b•l"t°B-NEY-GENERAL prayed the Court for d
L l'efbi4st the defendants in this case.. . The defendants,
triecil! Samuel Green, and William Lovell, had
tit and convicted before' Mr. Justice Williams, at
)ileivehti,:rfnik Assizes of an assault upon John. Eaden, a
Ifficer, while in the execution of his duty at a
;+lll4r, i justi' tue coast of that county.
WiLLIAms read his notes of the trial, frodm
all'ileared that on the 09th of last March the
l'lad attacked the revenue officer with a pitchfork,.
eeedin t , the coast in the execution of his
q,n altercation towards
place, in consequence of one of
;‘teyealnants telling the officer he had no right to
cutlass in his hand, and one of them Ti for
tlrei' and struck the prosecutor several blows with it..
tteindants being asked what they had. to in their
he ,a'teged that the prosecutor was intoxicated, and
The A"act been the aggressor.
L°Pdshh,ITGIINLY-GENERAL, for the Crown, referred their
)r,,,vide4,l" I? the Act 1d and 4th, Wm.4th, chap. 63, whicli
ctle ogee at any ersoti obstructing or assaulting a re-
ed_Lnt ;Ineer in theP execution of his duty shall be tereands-
-Ivo°tBeVen years, or imprisoned for a term not ex e
'll (.Y,ears, at the discretion of the Court.
earZuattr
_sentenced Dunn to twelve months' imprison-
th to d labour in the Norfolk House of Correction,
the expirat. nine months, and Lovell to six months, and at
Pea,elct of their sentences, to give securities to keep

u. ease
uMCAS V. HARMER D OTHERS.
kas
tue details of which appeared in our paper of
1 to enagain mentioned to-day. It then came before the
:pmt, .41plication
for a new trial, made on behalf of the
C lettle to .4.14 stood over to see whether the defendants would
te p,
dwor the case by consenting to the withdrawal of
tikthe sat,aalnau now said that the defendants did not agree
i
k takegeation—there were other motions to be apade
I their 17,04reasei., and they would prefer to have them all settled
-suilA decision.
ia STALEY V. HUNT.
caseVey
bYjoeyed for a rule to show cause why the verdict
ate, ti.was against him, for 751., should.. not be set
14e tau new trial had, on the ground of misdirection.
eot:iloa sse was tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at the
lip 444 fittings, after last Term, when Mr. Hunt, as usual,
himself. The facts of the case were these.bt
pith was in the habit of dealing for blacking- o -
Lz4.l,lhe It Person named Burton, in Derbyshire. In May,
sere, e dag,,°Le to Thomas Burton a bill for 1411. 165.. when it
Thos, was not prepared to take it up, but pa
N ee, 75): Einton, 661. in money, and another bill.
iifoter the
141,!egular1 When that bill became due it was presented in
Vera f
away and aid he dealt with Burton for three
'e* of
Y paid
—heard nothing of the bill all that
to red lie following May, eleven months afterv,rds,he
ettellt of tZ lettr from the plaintiff's solicitor, demanding
pay-
fee,setioeue lull for 141/. In answer he stated the facts, but
Vaiu, ;;as brought, and a verdict returned for theal doe; i
kk;tl74/.....uj4 application the Court granted a new trial f
t tial-gu the Jury
t'adit e atati returned a verdict for the plaintiff, at the
the 1.4' Mating
that it was a very hard coacsceasuepnonwaths,e de-
that
thet i"nied Judhe complained of on that i
Ktg was ge in the middle of the cause told the jury
Nit an undefended one and they must find for the
nth 11'1111,
said they agreed
nth e
in a very patient hearing, s
4i34 the Jury 1,1 thinking it a hard case, but they
u-
„-„lso agreed
hevUllan riled Judge, that in coming to any other Co'.-
tif luast,,,e, evidence, the Jury would have done wrong.
tau.' r, 11u4luse the rule.
Then that sets the Jury aside,_ and in all future
Rill
INs
k ord 'e Better to leave them to your Lordships.
ere a tlLlntlas.r said a Jury could not find a verdict upon alellsek Pieitt .of fraud, and be
supported.
4s ued
Lv.t,
lI r4NT DEBToRS'COURT—(THIS DAY).
'"408
llva su "elite, a frame-maker,
111104
ins(lported Mr. C°°". -
applied for his discharge.
ki,
tiv,ent was
unoosed It a cared thai the insolvent,
a. 4 ap„, uebted to•
ards, h the Glass Company in the sum f'..f2o‘t
ergs tilydati au accepted several bills of exchange for
k Cee °n of a
%Talr le ptance, person named Booth ; there had been
k,
r,o(lation but he had received no assistance from his
hQ
44
he U's' 1)0t er
BuvvlN told him it was fortunate for
seeebill comp:PPOSed ;be considered an individual offence
illsoiPt
s tted
each holder; a man had no right to
it'44Vtftlt f:lthoui henould pay them ; he had remanded an
Thae,ocea.7 days ago for asimilar
duch
at wai
ar d
ge