The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-06 00:00:00

EDGECUMBE V. TREACHER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved yesterday to
discharge an order of the Vice-Chancellor, by which
the injunction originally granted in this case was
dissolved. The case was resumed this morning,
The facts appeared to be, that on a partnership
being formed between Mr. Broderip and Mr. Fox,
as soap-boilers, at Bristol, Mr. Fox agreed to give
his partner a sum of 1,000/. as a consideration for
being admitted to the business. This sum was
secured by four promissory notes, and their payment
was secured by the covenant of the party giving
them, and by an undertaking by Mr. Egecumbe,
the present plaintiff, as his surety, that the payments
should be made when the bills became respectively
due, Some differences ensiled between the partners
as to the dealings with these bills, which were al-
leged to have been improperly pledged by the holtier
of them with his bankers as a security for his own
private debts. At length the partnership was dis-
solved by the bankruptcy, and a bill having been
filed by one of the pastni.rs against the other, Ow
suit was terminated by an agreement to refer all
matters in dispute to arbitration. After this the
assignees of Broderip sued the surety (Edgecumbe)
on his guarantee, and he then commenced the pre-
sent suit. The injunction was obtained, and
a motion being made before the Vice-Chan-
cellor to dissolve ir, his Honour granted the motion.
Against that decision this appeal was now brought.
Sir E. SUGDEN opposed the application.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that
this motion must be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 5.

LORD COCHRANE AND ANOTHER V. BRAITHWVAITE•

Sir JAMES SCARLETT moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be
set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of
misdirection, and that the verdict was against
eivdence. The action, which was for the infringe-
ment of a patent, was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice at the last sittings at Guildhall.
The COURT, after some consideration, granted a
rule to show cause.

PELLEW AND ANOTHER V. PETTIT AND OTHERS.

Mr. Dr. POLLOCK moved in this case for a rule
.LVisi to set aside the verdict which had been found
for the plaintiff, and for a new trial. This case was
tried before the Lord Chief Justice, at the sittings
after last term, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, damages 1701. The action was on three
promissory notes, bearing date as long ago as the
year 1813, and payable two, three, and four years
after date. The notes were given by the three de-
fendants, two of whom had signed them as church-
wardens of the parish of Chingford, in Essex, and
the other as overseer of that parish. The defen-
dants pleaded the general issue and the Statute of
Limitations.

The COURT took time to look into the case.

THE KING V. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF WALSALL.

Mr. WHATELEY moved for a rule to show cause
why a writ of mandamus should not issue to the
churchwardens of Walsall, commanding them to levy
a rate towards the repayment of a moiety of certain
sums which had been borrowed for the purpose of
enlarging the parish church. The question as to
the legality of the rate was tried at the last assizes
at Stafford, when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff, establishing the validity of the custom, subject
to the opinion of the Court on some questions of law.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.

EASLEY V. CROCKFORD.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE pronounced the de-
cision of the Court upon the application for a new
trial in this case. It had been made on three
grounds—let, that the bank-note traced to the
hands of the defendant had not been clearly proved
to be the same note which the plaintiff had lost.
Upon that point the Court thought that there
had been sufficient evidence of its identity,
at least for the jury to decide upon, and they
were satisfied that it was the same note. Upon
the second ground—namely, that the plaintiff's
own negligence had led to the loss—the Court was
also of opinion that the verdict ought not to be dis-
turbed. It was very true that the plaintiff's going
into the lecture-room at the Rotunda with so large
a sum of money in his possession was a very indis-
creet act; but still how did that contribute towards
the defendant's want of due care ? The only re-
maining ground, then, was whether or not the de-
fendant had been guilty of negligence in not taking
some notice of the party from whom he received so
large a note ? The Court thought he had, but there
w as no ground for disturbing the verdict.