The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-25 00:00:00

REX V. SLAUGHTON.

This was a rule for a criminal information against
the proprietors of a Hertfordshire paper, for a libel
on the Magistracy of that county, and particularly
on a Mr. Alston, one of that number. The liba
arose out of matters connected with the last elec ion.
Mr. FOLLETT showed cause against the rule; but
The COURT said the rule must be made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 23.

(Sittings in Banco.)
PRICE V. HARRIS AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
lady, the proprietor of a house in the city, against
the defendants, seventeen in number, for pulling it
down and carrying away the materials. Sixteen of
the defendants went to trial, and obtained a ver-
dict. One of the defendants, a person of the name
of Proctor, suffered judgment to go by default, and
the damages were assessed at 900/. The plaintiff,
to-day, applied to set aside the verdict against one
of the defendants who was improperly acquitted.
The COURT granted the application upon the
terms that she should enter a noli prosequi against
the other fifteen, and that the damages should not
be increased beyond 900/ ; and further, that the
other defendant who suffered judgment to go by
(I,foutt. rnizzrt, ..,"6":37.7 :67:3 COUrt and vi, CU re-
duce the damages.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 23.

(Sittings in Jhnco.)
ACTION AFTER PAYMENT OF DEBT.--COOK v.
BROOKS, CLERK,
_ _

Mr. EARLE moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict found for the di fendant should nor he
set aside, and a verdict entered for the plain- iff, with
one shilling damages, or why a new trial should not
be had upon the following statement :—Mr. Payne,
plaintiff's attorney, having repeatedly applied to the
defendant for the debt due to his client, and having
received from him a check to the amount, which was
dishonoured, issued a writ of summons, and, to
avoid the scandal of personally serving a clergyman,
wrote to apprise him of the commencement of the
action, and requested him to name some attorney
who would accept process on his behalf, statir'g
the debt was nine pounds awl costs two pounds.
In reply the defendant enclosed a check for the
amount of the debt only, and thanked Mr. Payne
for his indukence. Mr. Payne paid the check
over to his client for the debt, but applied to the
defendant for the costs, who reft“td to pay them.
On this the action was pro,ecuied, and wa-,, under
the recent Act of Parliament, tried helot e the
Sheriff, who ,aid, in his charge to the Jury, that
the only question they h d to consider was, whether
the debt was satisfied. The Jury accordingly gave
a verdict for the defendant, re.erving to the plaintiff
a right to make this motion. The Learned Couns(l
contended that the authorities were perfec ly clear
on the point that the satisfaction of the debt alone
after action commenced, was no stay of proceeding.;
and that if the defendant refused to pay costs, the
plaintiff was entitled to such nominal damages as
would carry costs.

True COURT concurred in opinion, provided the
check wa• receipted expressly for the debt alone,
and against a rule to show cause at Chambers.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nor. 23.

(I 3 (:re Sir Joinv Nuniot )
IN TUE GOODS OF IIOWLET, DECEASED.

In this case a proctor had sent into the Preroga•.
•ive Office a paper to pass probate in the common
form, it having been commenced by the deceased
,vith his name, but not signed at foot. The notice
of the Court having been coiled to the subject,
Sir JOHN NICHOLL expressed his fear and astonish-
ment that such au unfinished paper had been pre-
-ented to pass probate in the common form by one
of the procrors of that Court. The public had
confidence in the proctors, and they were respon-
,ible to that Court for the due protection of pro.
perry ; for which purpose they had the exclusive
light of passing probates. A paper executed like
that before the Court had not been held to be a
perfect document by Lord Eldon, Lord Hard-
wicke, or by any Court; and he felt a great decree
of alarm at such a paper having been presented, as,
if it had passed, it might have been attended with
serious consequences. The paper left the whole
property to the widow if it had been complete, arid
two natural daughters were unprovided for. He
vas bound to pronounce against the validity of the
oaper before the Court, and decree that the de.
ceased had died intestate.