The Sun.
London, England, 1833-01-26 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT, JAN. 25.

13UCKINGIIAbl V. BAINBRIDGE.
Mr. Twlss and Mr. WAKEFIELD appeared in this
case for the plaintiffs. The bill was filed for the
purpose of procuring the specific performance of an
agreement, which, in 1826, the plaintiffs had entered
Imo with a person named Semple, now a bankrupt,
he defendants being his assignees.
Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. WRAY, for the defen-
dants, stated, that a more palpable case of usury had
iiever come under their notice. It appeared that in-
terest had been charged at the rate of 10 per cent.,
and that quarterly rests had been made, with com-
pound interest.
Mr. JERVIS replied.
A long discussion ensued, and his Honour allowed
the case to stand over till to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF COvIMON PLEAS, JAN. 25.

TOWNER V. MASSEY.

This was an action on a promissory note for 3001.
The defence set up was, that there had not been a
good consideration given for the note, the debt for
which it was passed consisting of a quantity of sad-
dlery and harness, &c., supplied to the defendant
he was a minor. It appeared that in seven
months he had been furnished with 36 whips, five
suits of horse clothing, four saddles, one a side sad-
(lle, seven pair of spurs, &c. The charges for all
(hese, however, were reasonable.

Verdict for the plaintiff—l./Images 3001.
STEADMAN V. EARDLEY.

This was an action to recover six guineas and a
half for meat and drink supplied to the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant (the
former a married man) took lodgings at Highgate,
tor the purpose of enjoying some fishing and other
country recreation. The di fetntint occupied a bed-
room in the house of a Mrs. Smith, and the plaintiff,
with his wife, occupied a drawing-room and bed-
room in the same house. They continued very good
friends for some time, and passed their time socially
together, occasionally making a fishing excursion in
cAnpahy with other friends, and occasionally having
a small whist party in the evening, until, unhappily,
a quarrel arose at cards one evening, and, from being
friends, the parties became enemies. The de-

fendant having taken his meals at the plaintiff's
table, the present action was brought to recover re-
muneration for the defendant's board. The only
question in the cause was, whether the defendant
was to be considered a visiter or a boarder with the
plaintiff during the period in question. The evi-
dence on the plaintiff's part went to show that the
understanding between the parties was that they
should defray the expenses between them ; and the
defendant, on the quarrel taking place at cards, told
the plaintiff that he wished to have his account set-
tled. On the part of the defendant it was sworn,
that the plaintiff had expressly invited the defendant
to come and sprid a week or ten days with him,
arid consequently the defendant's friends, by way of
returning the civility, sent him presents of ducks,
pigeons, wine, &c. The parties appeared to be in
the rank of life of respectable chopmen.—Verdict
for the plaintiff—Da.nages 61. 164. 6d.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 25.

WALKER V. NICKOLLS.

This was an action on an attorney's bill, and the
defence was, that the bill had not been delivered
month before action. At the time a verdict wa,
found for the plaintiff, and a rule Nisi to enter a non-
suit having been obtained, the case now came or,
for di,cussion upon that rule, the question being
whether or not this was such a bill as ought, under
the statute, to have been delivered a month before
the commencement of the action.

The COURT decided in favour of the argument in
support of the ride, observing, however, that it was
not necessary to deliver a bill according to the Act,
unless it related strictly to business done as an at-
torney.—Rule absolute.

THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF NEWCASTLE-