The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 28.
;Sittings in Middlesex, before Lord Chief Justice
JERVIS and a Special Jury.)
ARDEN V. GOODACRE.

This was the second trial of an action against the late
sheriff of Leicestershire for an escape. At the former
trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff with
501. damages, the Learned Judge who tried the case
having told the jury he thought they might take into
consideration the conduct of the plaintiff, and might re-
duce the damages if they thought he had been guilty of
!aches, and might by more activity have arrested his
debtor at a period when he had the means of paying the
debt order. The Court above, however, thought that
this was a misdirection, and ordered a new trial.

Mr. Sergeant Ctiannell and Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., were
the plaintiff's counsel; and Mr. Sergeant Bytes, Mr.
Lush, and Mr. Karslake, the defendant's.
It appeared that on the sth January, 1850, an officer
of the defendant arrested a gentleman named William
Bingham, in Leicestershire, as he was returning from
his'father's funeral, for a judgment debt of 2,6901., which
had been recovered by the plaintiff, but that Mr. Bing-
ham managed to escape from the officer. Under his
father's will Mr. Bingham was entitled to an annuity of
3001. a year charged on his father's personal estate; but
his brother, who was the sole executor under the will,
was authorised to require a receipt for the quarterly
payments of the annuity under the legatee's own hand,
and further to require, if it pleased him, his personal at-
tendance at the Town-hall in Nottingham to receive the
money. After the escape Mr. W. Biogham was arrested
by other creditors, and assigned to them portions of the
annuity; but he was now confined tor debt in the
Queen's Prison, and there were still writs out against
him at the suit of other creditors to the amount of many
thousand pounds. These facts being proved,
The LORD CURT JUSTICE summed up the evidence,
and told the jury the question for their consideration
was, what was the value to the plaintiff of the custody of
the debtor at the moment when he made his escape.
And, to ascertain this, he should ask them two questions
—lst, what was the value if the debtor had the power of
assigning the annuity without his brother's consent ?
2d, what was its value if that consent was necessary ?
—The jury retired for some time; and, in answer to the
first question, said, 1,7871. ss. 6d.; and, in answer to the
second, 230/.
The LORD CDIEF JUSTICE then directed the verdict
to be entered for the plaintiff, with 1,7871. ss. 6d. da-
mages, with liberty to the defendant to move to reduce
it to the lower sum.—Verdict accordingly.
IaOPPER V. SMITH.

This was an action to recover 1,7001. as remuneration
for necessaries supplied to the defendant's wife by the
plaintiff, her father, since the year 1847, during periods
when it was alleged it became necessary that the plain-
tiff should supply theta, in consequence of the desertion
and other misconduct of her husband, the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkie°, Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr.
R. 'Thomas, were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Sergeant Byles and Mr. Willes for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an architect, and the defendant a man
of large fortune and member of the honourable body
of Gentlemen-at-Amu. The defendant married the
plaintiff's daughter in 1847, bat soon afterwards he left
her for a time, and upon her afterwards taking up her
abode with him so conducted himself that she ultimately
left Lim, and her father supplied her with a house and
furniture, food, clothing, and other necessaries, for the
price of whieh he now brought the present action. On
the other hand, the defendant resisted the claim, upon
the ground that he now allowed his wife 5001. a year, and
that as she had left his house voluntarily he was not
liable for her support during her absence.
When the L4arned Sergeant who led for the plaintiff
had concluded opening his case, which was upon his ex
parte statement of the most painful character,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was a great pity
such a case could not be mutually arranged. Ho would
recommend the plaintiff to take any reasonable terms.
After a long discussion between the plaintiff and his
counsel, during which the plaintiff seemed most unwil
ling to come to terms, an arrangement (which was not
made public) was effected, and a verdict taken for the
plaintiff bUbjeCt to the terms agreed on.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was by far the best
way of disposing of the ease. Of course everybody
who had heard the opening on behalf of the plaintiff
would understand that it was but an ex parte statement,
and might be explains,' or rebutted by evidence for the
defendant.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said that precisely the terms now
accepted by the plaintiff had been offered him a year
ago, and had been rejected.

COI/la OF EXCtIEQUEII, N6v. 28.
Before the LORD CHIEF BARON. and a Common Jury.

FURZE V. ♦SKER.

This was an action to recover 317/ for the price and
value of the good will, stock, fixtures, and furniture of
a public-house called the Folly House, Biackwall, bar-
gained and sold to the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he was induced to enter
into the contract by fraud, and that it had been agreed
between the parties that the plaintiffs should take back
the stock, Etc.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Needham appeared for
the plaintiff; .vir. E. James and Mr. Bovill for the de-
fendant.
The case was partly heard on Thursday, and was con-
tinued on and occupied the whole of Friday. Tho whole
case turned upon whether the defendant was deceived by
the plaintiff's clerk, who negotiated the sale, as to the
value of the business done, the defendant alleging that
the house, which is by the river side on the Isle of Dogs,
was represented to be doing 801. a month i❑ beer and
spirits, whereas in fact, in consequence of Messrs.
Somes, the ship-builders, having blocked up an entrance
to their yard which eas near the Folly, and of Messrs.
Cubitt, the builders, having built a public-house for
their men, the trade had fallen off to 201. per month.
For the plaintiffs, who are brewers, in the neighbour-
hood, it was contended that the defendant was well
aware of the trade done at the Folly, and that it was
only represented to be doing 801. in the summer months.
In the course of the trial the defendant's wife was
called, but she was objected to. His Lordship rejected
her evidence, upon which a bill of exceptions was ten-
dered to his Lordships ruling.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on the
first and second issues,;a❑d for the defendant on the third.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, N0v.28.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RE W. STRANGE, JUN.

The bankrupt was a bookseller and publisher in
Paternoster-row. ilia accounts, prepared by Mr. Butler,
extend from February, 1849, to August, 1851, and con-
tain the following items:—Dr.: Creditors unsecured,
1,3521.; holding security, 3951.; profits, 4,3051. Cr.:
debtors, 76/ ; doubtful, 441.; bad, 261/. ; property given
up, 1461.; property in hands of creditors, 2921.; amount
paid to W. Strange, sen., 1,282/.; repairs and alterations,
304/. ; trade expenses, 2,6661.; personal expenses, 4821.;
losses, 5621.
This was the last examination meeting.
Mr. Lawrence appeared for the bankrupt; Mr. Rivolta
for the assignees.
After some inquiry touching the sum of 1,2821. paid
to the bankrupt's father, which the bankrupt explained
by stating that a considerable portion of it had been
made during his father's residence abroad, the Court
considered the explanation satisfactory, and the bank-
rupt passed his examination.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron PAiKE.)
Yesterday 'Thomas Robert Mellish. a person of re-
spectable appearance, who surrendered to take his trial,
and James Douglas, 25, clerk, were jointly indicted for
feloniously forging and uttering a receipt for 41. 10J.,
with intent to defraud.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballautine were counsel for
the prosecution. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., who was
specially retained, with Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Huddle-
stone, appeared for Mellish, and Mr. Perry defended the
other prisoner.
This case occupied the Court the whole day, and was
not concluded until late, but the facts upon which the
charge was founded lay in a very small compass, and
the details were not of a nature to interest the public.
It appeared that ,he prosecutor of the indictment was a
Mr. Thompson, who had .xeroised rho profession of a
surgeon, and who, in 1819, became the proprietor of a
patent for silvering glAss.and it would seem that, being
desirous to effect some improvement in the glass upon
which the process was ter bo applied, ho engaged the
prisoner Mellish, who vas a person of skill in con-
nexion with the manufactire of that article, to carry out
his views. An arrangement was accordingly entered
into between the parties, curler which Mellish undertook
the entire management of the works where the pro.
cess was carried on, and it appeared that he insisted
upon having the sole control of the establishment, and
also the power to engage the workmen, both in-doors and
out of doors, and to pay then, and that, in point of
fact, there should be no interference whatever by the
prosecutor with the business. Ir. Thompson became a
party to this arrangement, and he agreed to pay memo,
six guineas per week for his services. Whet) the pri-