The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-07 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE gave the following judg-
ments on motions which had been male during the pre-
sent term, and which had stood over for consideration.

WEDGE V. NEWLYN.

His LORDSHIP said this was a motion to set aside a
verdict which had been given at the Winchester assizes,
establishing an act of bankruptcy against a person
named. Smith, by means of a fraudulent bill of sale, given
to he plaintiff. The same verdict had been given on a
former trial. His Lordship had consulted with Mr.
Justice Alderson, who tried the cause, and that Learned
Judge• was of opinion with the jury, that it was satisfac-
torily proved that the bill of sale was fraudulent, and of
itself an act of bankruptcy. The rule for a new trial
must be therefore refused.
COLE V. LAWSON.

This was an action brought bya brewer at Bridport
against the printer of the Times for a libel, and a verdict
found with 2001. damages.
His Lordship said it appeared that the plaintiff originally
stated his intention to proceed only for nominal damages,
his object being merely to clear his character. However,
the defendant hid pleaded a justification, and had up to
the last moment attempted to prove the truth of the libel,
which was, in fact, a very gross one. The plaintiff's
counsel, upon that, claimed his right to ask for much
; and although the Learned Judge who
threiaevdierthdearnge
causeas (Alderson), in his address to the
Jury, stated that very moderate damages would
suffice to clear the plaintiff's character, the jury,
acting probably upon the feeling produced by the defen-
dant's persisting to the last in the truth of the libel, gave
2001. damages. That was a point entirely for the jury,
and their Lordships did not think the verdict an impro-
per one.
The rule for a new trial, or for a reduction of damages,
WAS refused.

BRIDGES V. BLANCHARD.
His Lordship stated that this was an action of trespass,
which was tried at the last Winchester assizes, and a ver-
dict found for the plaintiff. A rule had been moved for
the purpose of entering a nonsuit, or obtaining a new
trial, on two grounds ; first, that the defendant had a
license from the plaintiff to put a window into a
wall adjoining the premises of the latter, and secondly
that the verdict was against evidence. Their Lordships
were of opinion that the jury were right in saying that the
wall was the plaintiff's property, and therefore the rule
would not be granted on that ground, but the point as to
leave and license deserved further consideration, and upon
that the rule would issue.—Rule Nisi granted.

WILLIAMS U. GREVILLi.
This was an action by an innkeeper, to recover from the
Hon. Colonel Greville a certain sum for the expenses of
that Hon. Gentleman's voters at the last election. The
defendant had paid 6001. into Court, but the jury had
found for 6391. An application bad been made for a new
trial, on the ground of excessive damages.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the chief point raised

ft'AJ'.J

in support of the application was that the greater part of
the expenses were incurred in defiance of the Treating
Act. He had conferred with Mr. Ju,tice Bosanquet, who
tried the cause, and who was satisfied that the verdict
ought not to be disturbed, although the finding was cer-
tainly large.—Rule refused.