The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-06 00:00:00

ANSLEY V. LUCAS.

Mr. HILL moved for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict given in this case for the plaintiff should not be set aside
and a new trial granted. This was an action brought
against the owner to-recover the value of a cargo of coals,
and to recover also a sum of money lent to the Captain.
The Captain had, in fact, wrongfully taken possession of
the ship as his own, and had borrowed the money while he
held such wrongful possession of the ship. The owner had
since recovered possession of it ; and this action was then
brought against him.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 5.

( Sittings at Nisi Pr ius before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and a
Common Jury.)
WATSON V. WHARTON.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated the plaintiff's case. The
action was brought to recover damages for a breach o f
contract in neglecting to convey a lease of certain premises
to the plaintiff. The premises comprised a house called
" Pattinghall Lodge," and 60 acres of adjoining land situate
at Mill Hill, near Hendon, which had been held by the
defendant during the lifetime of a gentleman named Franks.
The defendant being desirous of disposing of his interest in
the estate inserted an advertisement to that effect in the
newspapers, and the plaintiff offered to become a purchaser
the defendant assuring him that he had a good title. The
rental agreed upon was 1501., the fixtures to be taken at a
fair valuation, and one quarter's rent to be paid in advance.
An agreement was entered into between them in pursuance
of which the plaintiff took possession of the premises in
September, 1832, and immediately made various improve-
ments in both the house and lands adjoining, the defendant
contracting to procure a lease for the plaintiff. An abstract
of the title was subsequently furnished, from which it ap-
peared that the estate was charged with an annuity of 1501.,
and it was afterwards discovered that there was a power
of redemption of the annuity which disqualified the defendant
from giving any title to the estate. It was for this breach,
of contract that the action was brought, as well as to re-
cover the sum of money the plaintiff had expended on the
house and lands.

The Learned JUDGE, after hearing the plaintiff's case,
suggested that it would be better to refer the matter in
dispute to arbitration, but the plaintiff would not agree to
the suggestion. The case accordingly proceeded.
After witnesses had been examined, whose evidence con-
firmed the statement made by Sir James Scarlett,
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and the
Jury returned a.verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one far-
thing ; costs 40s.
_ _ _

Mr. PLATT applied to his Lordship to certify, but he re-
fused to do so.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.

(Sittings in Banco )
CHALMERS V. SHACKELL.

This was an action for a libel inserted in the John Bull,
tried at the last sittings at Guildhall, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff, with 301. damages.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE moved on behalf of the defendant
for a rule either to enter a nonsuit (by leave of the Lord
Chief Justice, who tried the cause), or to arrest the judg-
ment. The ground on which he moved to enter the nonsuit
was that matter of inducement in the declaration describing
the libel had not been proved. It was stated in the libel
that the plaintiff had resided at the Rotunda, and in de-
scribing the libel it was stated in the declaration that the
Rotunda was a place where sedition and blasphemy were
promulgated ; but this had not been proved, and he sub-
mitted that it ought to have been. The ground upon which
he rested the other branch of his case was that the innuen-
does went far beyond the matter of the libel. They did not
simply explain the libel, but imported new matter into it.
In the libel it was stated that the plaintiff had headed a de-
putation to the Lord Mayor to petition for the abolition of
the punishment of death for forgery, and the innuendo was
" meaning that the plaintiff endeavoured to procure such
abolition in order that he might, if tried and convicted of
the crime of forgery, escape the punishment of death."
Now this, he apprehended, was a meaning which could not
be fixed upon the language of the libel. The Learned Ser-
geant instanced other parts of the declaration as containing
similar unwarranted innuendoes.—The Court would grant
a rule to show cause generally.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.