The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-19 00:00:00

BAIL COURT, Nov. 18.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat in this Court for the pur-
pose of hearing motions.

V. KELLY AND OTHERS.

Mr. MOODY on a former day applied to this Court for a
rule to show cause why affixing the declaration in this case
(an action of ejectment) on the door of the premises should
not be deemed good service, the parties in possession having
turned the premises into a gaming-house, to which all endea-
vours to gain access had proved ineffectual. The Judge
declined granting the rule ; but on application to the full
Court the rule was granted. Mr. Moody now applied to
his Lordship to make that rule absolute, on an affidavit
stating that the plaintiff's attorney had since succeeded in
personally serving one of the parties in possession of the
premis,el-4ulo

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 18.

GILES V. SMITH.

Mr. Baron PARKS delivered the judgment of the Court
in this case, which had been argued on a previous day, upon
a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside, on the ground of admission of improper evidence by
the Judge. The Learned Baron bad adaiittud betundary
evidence of the contents of a deed of assignment by a bank-
rupt to his assignees, satisfactory evidence having been pre-
viously given of the loss of that deed. The admission of
this evidence, it had been contended, was improper, inas-
much as the 96th section of the Gth of George IV., cap. 16,
required that all assignments of the personal estates of bank-
rupts should be enrolled, and further enacted that such as-
signments should not be received in evidence in any Court
of law or equity unless they had been enrolled. If, then,
the deed itself bad been produced, not having been enrolled,
it could not have been received ; and hence it was alleged
that secondary evidence of its contents could not be re-
ceived. The Court were, however, of opinion, that the
object of the provision as to enrolment was to obviate the
inconvenience likely to arise from the loss of the deed ; and
that the Act was inapplicable to cases where the deed was
nit produced, and that in all such cases secondary evidence
might be given of its contents.—Rule discharged.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 18.

SARGEANT V. SARGEANT.

This case again came before the Court in the form of
an exceptive allegation to the evidence of a witness exa-
mined on the part of Mrs. Sargeant, with a view to prove
the commission of adultery by her husband. The witness
fully deposed to that commission, and as far as regarded
that part of her testimony no contradiction was offered in
the allegation now tendered. In the course of her evi-
dence, however, she positively swore that her then name
was Anne Grainger, and that at the time of her deposition
she was the wife of John Grainger, a shoemaker, residing
at Kensington. To this part of her evidence the Proctor,
on behalf of the plaintiff (Mr. Sargeant), tendered an ex-
ceptive allegation, alledging that the witness's name was
not Grainger, but Stevens, and that if at the time her evi-
dence was taken she was a married woman her name was
Stevens, and that she was the wife of a man named John
Stevens. The witness, it should have been stated, when
under examination, admitted that she had in the first in-
stance been married to Stevens, but positively swore that
he had died, and that she was then the lawful wife of the
man Grainger. The case being in this state it now came
for judgment to the Court. On the part of the defendant,
Mrs. Sargeant, it was contended by Drs. Burnaby and
Nicholl that the allegation was inadmissible. On the other
side, it was contended by Dr. Adams, that although it
was not the practice of the Courts of Law to admit allega-
tions tending, to raise collateral issues, it had been inva-
riably the practice of Consistorial, Arches, and Prerogative
Courts so to do.
Dr. LusHINGToN, after a brief recapitulation of the
leading features of the case, was altogether of opinion that
the allegation could not be received.