The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-16 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

This being the first day of Easter Term, Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Willes, and Mr. Justice
Byles took their seats on the bench shortly before 2 o'clock.

LEADER V. HOMEWOOD.

This was an action of trover and detinue, tried at West-
minster before Mr. Justico Byles, in which a verdict was
found for the plaintiff—damages 1171.
The action was brought by the outgoing tenant of some
premises at Lambeth, to recover the value of some fixtures
to which he claimed a right. His term having expired,
the tenant in possession refused to allow him access to the
premises to take the fixtures away.
Mr. Wordsworth, Q.C., now moved for a nonsuit, or for
a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and that the
verdict was against evidence.
Rule nisi granted.
DALTON v. SOUTFI-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought by iiiei;&ii;tiff,;alu;inis-
trator to his son, who was killed by an accident on the
defendants' railway. This action was tried last term
before Mr. Justice Byles, and a verdict found for the
plaintiff for 147 q,
Mr. Hill, Q.C., now moved to set aside the verdict, or to
enter a nonsuit, or reduce the damages. The question was
whether plaintiff show el pecuniary loss. The plaintiff, it
appeared, was an agricultural labourer. The deceased, his
son, left home many years ago and became servant in a
geatleman's family, after which he was apprenticed to a
carpenter, and had latterly earned good wages. He visited
his father about once alortnight, and was in the habit of
taking him presents of groceries, clothes, and money, to
the amount of about 201. a-year. This question had re-
ceived ajudicial construction in the case of " Lake T. The
Midland Railway Company," 18, Queen's Bench Reports.
He submitted that the father, under the circumstances,
had not sustained a pecuniary loss within the construction
put on Lord Campbell's act.
Rule nisi granted.

KERSLEICE V PICARD.
This was an action tried. on the 24th of February last in
the L.rd Mayor's Court before the Common Sergeant,
when a verdict was enttrid for the defendant, with leave
to move to enter it for the plaintiff for 26/. 12e.
Mr. Powell now moved accordingly. The declaration
was upon a false warranty of some gold chains. There was
a second count for deceit, to which the defendant pleaded
not guilty. The plaintiff, it appeared, was desirous of
discounting a bill of exchange for 1501., aid took it to the
defendant, who transacted such matters, and who also
dealt in jewellery, and the defendant agreed to discount
the bill if the plaintiff would take a certain quantity of
gold chains, which he warranted to be ofll carats quality
The plaintiff agreed to this, and took 571. worth of gold
chains. Some time after the plaintiff was induced to get
the gold of which they wore made tested, and it was then
found that, instead of being 14 carats quality, they were
only 94 carats, the difference in the value being 261. 103.,
which he sought to recover. The jury found that there
was a warranty, and that it was false, but a idea they did
not believe any fraud was intended by the defendant, On
this verdict, the counsel for the defendant drew the atten-
tion of the Court to the scienter alleged in the declaration,
which, he contended it was necessary should be proved,
and claimed the verdict. The judge directed the verdict
thereupon to be entered for the defendant, giving the
plaintiff leave to move. The ease was identical with
.illiamson v. Allanson," in 2, East's Reports, and on
the authority of that case the learned counsel asked for a
rule nisi.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sitting in Banco.)
EX PARTE SMITH.

Mr. Scotland moved for the discharge of one Smith
under a rale for a habeas corpus, he having been com-
mitted to Kingston-on-Hull Gaol on a warrant charging
him with ailing, abetting, counselling, and pr
Thompson to desert his master's service. The return one
ntoe
the writ having been read, the learned counsel took several
technical objections to the proceedings against his client.
Mt. was
r.Prr
not called Thompson,
who appeared in support of the war-
ranupon to answer the case put forward
on behalf of the prisoner.
The Court was of opinion that the prisoner was not en-
titled to be diezhargect.
Judgment accordingly.
HOGG V. WARD.
Mr. Hill moved to enter a verdict for the defendant in
lieu of the verdict for the plaintiff for 5/ damages, which
passed at the trial before Mr. Baron Martin on the Nor-
thern Circuit. The action was for false imprisonment, and
it appeared that the defendant, being a superintendent of
police, was told by one Johnson to take the plaintiff into
custody for stealing some traces which had be4n stolen at
the " peace rejoicing" in 1831. The plaintiff, on being in-
terrogated by the defendant, said he had bought the traces
for Is. from a stranger, who had picked them up, and,
this account being unsatisfactory, the defendant took him
into custody. The question now sought to be raised was
whether, under these circurnstanc3s, the defendant was
justified in taking the plaintiff into custody.
Mr. Baron Bramwell thought that the bare fact of a
charge being made was not a justifiration for an officer to
take a man into custody without any further inquiry into
the matter. The rule, however, would go.
The Court granted a rule nisi.