The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-22 00:00:00

THE KING V. BRYANT AND ANOTHER.

Mr. PLATT stated that this was an indictment preferred
against the defendants at the Sessions. An application hail
been made a long time since by the defendants to Mr. Jus-
tice Taunton to remove the case by certiorari. That
Learned Judge refused the application. Shortly afterwards
the defendants applied to Mr. Justice Littledale for a rule
fOr a certiorari, and that Learned Judge, not being informed
of the preYpW4 application to Mr. Toncon,graeie'Ci
the rule. Mr. 'Justice Taunton subsequently directed a
procedendo to issue. Another application was then made
the Bail Court to Mr. Justice Littledale. A case was
made out, and a certiorari was ordered, but no statement

of the previous circumstance was
tutors, under these circumstances,
the Court for a procedendo.
The COURT granted the rule.

then made. The prose-
were driven to appeal to

COMMON PLEAS-WEDNESDAY.

PRINCE V. BRUNATT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff as indersee of
a bill of exchange. The declaration stated the bill to be
drawn by Sarah Elwood on the defendant, and payable to
the order of Sarah Elwood, and accepted by the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that Sarah Elwood, the supposed
drawer of the bill, was a married woman. To this, which
prima facie was an answer to the action, the plaintiff re-
plied that Sarah Elwood, at the time of the drawing and
indorsing of the said bill, drew and indorsed it as the agent
of, and by the authority of, her husband. To this replica-
tion the defendant demurred, on the ground that it was a
departure from the allegation in the declaration.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD supported the demurrer.
Mr. COMYN supported the replication, and the Court
held the replication good.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

EXCHEQUER COURT, WEDNESDAY

ADAM V. BANKART.
Mr. Sergeant GouLunaN showed cause to a rule ob-
tained in last term by Mr: Hill, calling on the plaintiff to
show cause why the uonsuit in this case should not be set
aside, and a new trial had. It was an action on an award
against the defendants, who were partners in trade. It was
tried before Mr. Justice Taunton, at the last assizes in Lei-
cester, when the plaintiff was nonsuited, because one of the
partners only agreed to the submission to arbitration ; and
the Learned Judge was of opinion that the other partner
was not bound by such submission, and consequently that
the award was void. The Learned Sergeant contended
that one partner could not bind another by transactions
which were before the partnership, and not necessary for
carrying it on.
Mr. HILL submitted that there was no direct authority to
show that one partner could not bind another by submission
to arbitration.
Lord ABINGER was satisfied that one arbitrator could
not bind another by submission to arbitration, as it was no
part of the partnership transactions.—Rule absolute.

PREEDY V. MACFARLANE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Surgeon,
against. the defendant, formerly a Lieutenant in the army,
to recover the sum of 27/. 10s. for medical attendance,
and for the boarding and lodging of the family of the de-
fendant. It was tried on the sth of December before Mr.
Baron Gurney, when the Jury found a verdict for the sum
of 28/. ; but in consequence of the Learned Judge thinking
a verdict for that sum was unsafe, it was reduced to the
sum of 20/.

Mr. PRIC.I in the course of the present term, obtained a
rule Nisi for a new trial, on the grounds that the de-
fendant had been arrested, and held to bail for the sum of
371. 10s., whereas the plaintiff never attempted to make
such a claim, the only sum which he sought to recover was
271. 10s. ; besides in the bill of particulars there was
the following item :—" For attending you as a witness on
a charge of felony at Union Hall, in which you failed, two
guineas." There were other items of as equally extraordi-
nary a nature.

Mr. JERVIS now showed cause against the rule.
Mr PRICE supported the rule.—Rule discharged.

COOK V NETHERCOTE.
The plaintiff, a hairdresser at Eton, sought to recover
damages for the injury which he had received in conse-
quence of the violent conduct of certa'n officers, of whom
the defendant, a Cornet of Dragoons, was one, and who,
it was alleged, had inflicted a severe wound upon his ancle
by kicking him, whereby he was confined for forty weeks,
and had incurred a surgeon's bill for 75/. 15s. Bd.
Mr. THESSIGER was for the plaintiff. The officers and
others had, on the 7th of June, 1834, made a disturbance
by ringing the bells and knocking at the doors of the it.ha-
bitants, and making a great noise; that at length it was
found expedient to call in the aid of several of the inhabi-
tants, who were aroused from their beds when it was com-
menced, about twelve o'clock at night, and continued for
several hours. At length the Hon. W. Henry Stanley,
his brother, the Hon. Charles Stanley, a Mr. Gleig, and
the defendant were lodged at the cage. It was in the
course of this capture that the plaintiff received the injury,
of which he now complained. The defendant had a cricket
stump in his hand, and when the plaintiff collared him he
said, " If you don't leave me alone I'll knock your brains
out, and give you a good ducking." They were near the water
side. When taking him to the cage he made resistance
and tried to get away. There was a heap of rubbish, and
in the struggle they fell down, when the plaintiff exclaimed,
"I am kicked." When the defendant was lodged in the
cage the plaintiff repeated the charge. " You have kicked
me," he said, " you gave me a very bad kick." His leg
was much swelled. The defendant replied, "It served
you right."

The Hon. Henry Thomas Stanley, M.P. for Preston,
and Captain-Lieutenant in the Guards. The witness is
son of the Earl of Derby. He recollected the disturbance
which happened during Ascot races on the 6th of June.
The Oxford Blues and a regiment of Guards were at
Windsor. He did not see' defendant during the night, nor
did he see him till between two or three o'clock in the
morning, when he walked with him from Windsor to Eton,
to ascertain the reason why his brother, the Hon. Charles
Stanley, and Mr. Gleig were put in the cage. He had
dined at the Christopher Inn at Eton, and left about ten
o'clock, and went to Windsor, A disturbance was go;ng
on when he went there ; it commenced, he by
the ringing of bells and knocking at doors; He saw the de-
fendant at the White Hart afterwards \Olen he returned,
and they went together to the cage at Eton ; they knocked
at the wicket and asked to see the prisoners. The reply
was " Yes ; walk in." There were about fifteen or twenty
persons, mostly constables, present. Instantly they got in,
the door was closed, and he and the defendant were told
they were prisoners for having been concerned in the pre-
vious disturbance. The next day the defendant was dis-
charged by the Magistrates. In the cage they had some
brandy and water and some cigars, which were put through
the iron gratings.
On his cross-examination the witness said he was perfectly
sober. He had dined with two friends. There might have
been five or six officers engaged in the disturbance. His
brother's age was twenty-seven. His own age is thirty-two.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 123/. 15s. Bd.,
being the amount of the bill for medicines, and 75/. 15s. Bd.,
with .50/. beside, damages, as compensation.

INSOLVENT COURT-.WEDNESDAY.

Saul Levy, a Russian Jew, was opposed by Lyon Samuels.
In this case the acrimonious feelings of the parties were
displayed to a fearful extent, and, notwithstanding the con
flicting state of the evidence, it created much merriment
and lasted several hi urs. The insolvent had, according to
his statement, been robbed sonic months ago of between
5001. and 6001. He had given information to the polir7,-,
of the robbery. The opposing creditor Samuels sP',(l the
ins Ivent had not goods to that amount, and that he had
told hint he had robbed himself. This was positively de-
nied, and the insolvent said it had been pa into the news
papers. " Aye," replied Samuels, " anything can be put
into the papers"--(Loud laughter') The insolvent had, he
said, an idea of bolting to America ; but this was also con-
tradicte:i, awl Samuels was stated to be a friend of the in-
solvent, and had been to see him several times in Prison,
and bad suddenly turned round against him. The insolvent
had contracted some debts shortly before his arrest, among
others one with Mr. Hedlund to the amount of 51. 10s:, a
few days before he went to prison.
The Court considered that the insolvent was a fit sub-
ject for the exercise of the discretionary clause, and sen-
tenced him to the full modiouni of imprisonment, namely,
six months.
The Court sat till six o'clock.