The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Byles
and a Common Jury.)
FINCH- V. AITKEN.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a miller and
discounter of bills, for a sum. of £6O, the amount of
a bill of exchange accepted by a person named Con-
way, and drawn by the defendant, who is a
lodginghouse-keeper, living at No. 5, Park-street,
Grosvenor-square, and who pleaded that he had
received no notice that the bill was dishonoured.
Mr. J. 0. Griffiths was counsel for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Quain for the defendant.
For the plaintiff it was deposed that when the
bill came to maturity on the 20th November last,
he wrote a notice of its being dishonoured, which
was addressed to the defendant, and posted by his
son.

Mr. Aitken, in the course of his evidence, stated
that he had been nine years a butler in the service
of Dr. Temple, headmaster of Rugby School, and
that Mr. Conway was a tailor and outfitter at Not-
ting-hill. It was arranged at the plaintiff's house
that the defendant should be the drawer of a bill
of exchange, and he swore most positively • that
no letter from Fenil, dated the 20th November,
had been delivered at his house. This evidence
was corroborated by the groom of a lodger in the
house.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff--
damages £6O.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
IN THE GOOD OF D. A. REED.-JUDGMENT.

His Lordship delivered judgment in this curious
case, which was tried last week, and presented a
point upon which no precedent existed.
It was an application for probate of a document exe-
CULcd LT"
domiciled in Scotland, and one day before his mar-
riage. The document was in the form of a marriage
settlement, but was intended by the testator to operate
as a will, which was perfectly legal according to
Scotch law, although contrary to the law of Eng-
land. Some years subsequent to the marriage he
removed with his wife to this country, where he
died, and the question was whether, having become
a domiciled Englishman, his will should not have
been made in conformity with English law.
His lordship said that, except for certain statutory
enactments, the will would be invalid ; but in his
opinion, according to Lord Kingsdown's Act, unless
there were some act revoking the will, the mere
change of domicile did not vitiate it. He must,
therefore, decree probate of the will.
- -

IN THE MATTER OF THE GOODS OF W. VALLANCE.
In this case application was made for letters of
administration to the effects of William Valiance,
who had made a will bequeathing the residue of his
estate to his son, or in case of the latter prede-
ceasing him, to the present applicant. The son who
was a ship carpenter, sailed from this country in
1851, and had not been since heard of, the as-
sumption being that he was dead. The only point
was whether he died prior or subsequent to the
testator, and in the absence of any information on
that point his lordship considered the letters of ad-
ministration should be granted.
Decree accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE NA3311-TH.
This bankript was a merchant of Great St.
Helen's and Bombay, and to-day he came up upon
the adjourned meeting for the order of discharge.
The accounts show debts between £40,000 and
£50,000, but the assets are expected to prove con-
siderable.

Mr. Lawrence appeared for the bankrupt, and
Mr. Reed represented the assignees ; and it is not
unlikely that eventually the case will be taken out
of court.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

THE PACKED PARCEL QUESTION-IMPORTANT DECI-
SION-CHINERY V. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH

COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover £1 lls. 5d., alleged
overcharges by the company upon parcels forwarded
by the plaintiff. Mr. Plews appeared for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Smith representing the company.
It was admitted, for the purpose of shortening
the case that the, plaintiff had forwarded various
parcels to the company's receiving houses, paying the
rates levied in accordance with the tariff. The
parcels were consigned to the plaintiff's agent at
Brighton, who had to pay id. per lb. extra upon
them. It was stated that the question of packed
parcels had been contested by Mr. Sutton and a
great railway company, an appeal now lying for
hearing before the House of Lords.
Mr. Smith called the traffic superintendent in the
company's service, who deposed that by one of the
bye-laws the company was entitled to charge ono
penny per lb. extra on all packed parcels. This
was not only noted in the time-tables, but was
placed in a conspicuous spot on the company's
premises.
in cross-examination witness said that Id. per
lb. extra was invariably charged on all packed
parcels, no matter who sent them.
His Honour said that to his mind the case re-
solved itself into a very simple point. If the
company's bye law, under seal, gave notice that
packed parcels would be charged Id. per lb. extra,
then there was an end of the case, and the only
question was, had the plaintiff sent a sufficient
number of pounds to the company to warrant them
charging the consignee fa 1 ls. sd. ?
After some calculation it was found that the
company had charged 2s. 6d. too much, and al-
though it was endeavoured to be shown that this
sum had been levied for collecting the parcels, the
evidence was not conclusive upon the point, and his
Honour found a verdict for the plaintiff for half-a-
crown. Costs were applied for, bat his Honour said
he should only allow costs upon the amount re-
covered, as the company had been successful upon
the great point in packed parcels.