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

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

This being the first cl:►y of Easter Term, Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Willes, and Mr. Justice
Byles took their seats on the bench shortly beforo '2 o'clock.
LEADER V. HOMEWOOD.

This was an action of trover and detinue, tried at West-
minster before Mr. Justice 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. SOUTH-EASTRRN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as adminis-
trator to his son, who was kiiled 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 14 ',I.
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 showel pecuniary loss. The plaintiff, it
appeared, was an agricultural labourer. The deceased, his
son, left homa nviny years ago and became servant in a
gentleman's family, after which he was apprenticed to a
carpenter, and had latterly earned good wages. He visited
his father about once a-fortnight, and was in the habit of
taking him presents of groceries, clothes, and money, to
the amount of abort 201. a-year. This question had re-
ceived a j edicial construction in the case of " Lake v. The
Midland Railway Company," IS, Queen's Bench Reports.
He submitted that the father, nutter the circumstances,
had not sustained a pecuniary loss within the construction
put en Lord Campbell's act.
Rule nisi granted.
KERSLEME V PICARD.
This was an action tried on the 24th of February last in
the Lord Mayor's Court before the Common Sergeant,
when a verdict was enttr el for the defendant, with leave
to move to enter it for the plaintiff for 261. 12a.
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., and 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 ofl4 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 were made tested, and it was then
found that, instead of being 14 carats quality, they were
only 9i carats, the difference in the value being 261. 10s.,
which he sought to recover. The jury found that there
was a warranty, and that it was false, but added 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 adeged 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 case was identical with
‘ Williamson 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 rule for a habeas corpus, ho having been com-
mitted to Kingston-on-Hull Gaol on a warrant charging
him with aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring one
Thompson to desert his master's service. The return to
the writ having been read, the learned counsel took several
technical objections to the proceedings against his client.
Mr. P. Thompson, who appeared in support of the war-
rant. was not called upon 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 disehargoct."
Judgment accordingly.
' HOGG V. WARD.
Mr. Hill moved to enter a verdict for the defendant in
lieu of the verdict for the plaintiff for 51 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 hem stolen at
the " peace rejoicing" in 185 ti. The plaintiff, on being in-
terrogated by the defendant, said ho had bought the traces
for is. from a stranger, who hail 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 circumstancss, 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 justification for an officer to
take a man Imo custo iy without any further inquiry into
the matter. The rule, however, would go.
The Court granted a rule nisi.