The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-25 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICRXHANCELLOR was occupied the whole
morning with the arguments on the part heard case of Deacon v.
Deacon, which had not concluded when we left.

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY).

COX v. WALKER.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of
warranty of the soundness of a horse, tried at the last Surrey As-
sizes before Lord Chief Justice Denman, in which a verdict had
passed for the plaintiff, damages.9o/. 13s.
Mr. PLATT now moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, and a new trial had, or why the verdict
should not be reduced. The grounds upon which he made the ap-
plication were, first, that the verdict had been against evidence ;
and, secondly, on the ground of misdirection of the Learned Judge.
The horse had been purchased for 1001., at Horncastle fair, by the
plaintiff, from one Wilton, who acted as agent of the defendant.
The sale took place on the 16th August, 1834, and it was observed
at the time, that the horse had a slight swelling, against which
the vendor warranted him. The plaintiff was about to sell the
horse to Sir John Johnstone, for 1401., when it was discovered that
this swelling was a callosity of the bone, and the plaintiff lost his
bargain. The first intimation the defendant received of the un-
soundness was on the 20th of October, and the horse was ultimately
sold at Tattersall's, for 491. 7s. Three grooms who had the care of
the horse deposed, that he had received " a rap" in hunting, in
the year 1833, which produced a swelling, but was quite uncon-
nected with the bone—the horse had never gone lame, and had
been regularly hunted to the end of the season. He contended, on
these grounds, that the verdict should have been the other way.
Lord DENMAN observed, that two or three veterinary surgeons,
who had been examined at the trial, had stated that the horse was
decidedly unsound. The Court thought there was no ground on
this point for disturbing the verdict.
Mr. PLATT said he now moved to have the verdict reduced. The
Learned Judge had told the jury that the measure of damages
should be the difference between the sum for which the horse had
been sold, and the sum which the plaintiff could have obtained for
him from Sir J. Johnstone. He (Mr. P.) contended that the
damages should be reduced to the difference between the sum at
which the plaintiff had bought the horse, and the sum for which he
had been sold.

COURT—You may have your rule on this latter point

BAIL COURT--(THIS DAY.)

Sir Was. FOLLETT moved, on behalf of the Metropolitan Law
Society, for a rule to shew cause why an order of this Court for the
re-admission of an attorney to the Rolls, should not be discharged.
The person in question had been struck off the roll in consequence
of having been convicted of some offence, and imprisoned for 18
months. Affidavits had been put in, stating that the proper no-
tices had been served on the part of the attorney, but upon search
being made, it was discovered that no notice had been served, On
these grounds he contended that the order of the Court should be
rescinded.
COURT.--Take a rule nisi.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

HUBER v. STRINGER..

In this case, which arises out of an action against a French gen-
tleman, for the amount of certain bills of exchange, and which will
involve the question as to how far the Code Napoleon applies,
Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS applied for time to prepare himself for the
arguments.
The COURT ordered it to be postponed for a week. •

DUGDALE AND OTHERS v. BROCKBANK.
This was an action brought against the defendant upon a policy
of insurance, and a material witness in his behalf being a seafaring
man, and at present at Greenock, in Scotland,
Mr. WHITE moved that the said witness be examined on interro-
gatories, before his departure from this country.—Granted.
ANTHONY FINNERTY v. W. CARMICHAEL• SMYTH.

The defendant appeared in person, and moved that the rule in
this case be made absolute.

The COURT told him that his object ought to be to refer the case
to the Prothonotary.
The defendant was proceeding to quote Magna Charta, in which
there was a solemn promise on the part of the King that no delays
should take place in the administration of justice.
The Loan .CHixF-JusTlCE—Why, it is down to be heard before
the Prothonotary at 6 o'clock on Monday evening next. Your ob-
ject seems to be delay.
The defendant further addressed the Court, stating that the ac-
lion had been hanging over his head twelve months, and that the
result had been vexatiously delayed.
The COURT refused the motion, as there was an appointment to
hear it on Monday.
Defendant—l don't admit that.
Mr. JUSTICE PAux:--Do as you please. We do not give direc-
tions : you must take the consequences.
Defendant—ls the rule enlarged till Tuesday morning ?
COURT—No, it is enlarged, but not to any given day. It is for
benefit.
Defendant—Oh, no, no !
The LORD CI-liar JUSTICE—Then let it be discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY)

The COURT was occupied the whole morning with motions of no
public interest. Many motions for new trials were post-
poned in consequence of the absence of Mr. Baron Parke, occa-
sioned by the loss of one of his daughters.
As the whole of the Judges met to-day at two o'clock, for the
purpose of considering the Crown cases (cases reserved by the
Judges from the Criminal Courts), the Barons rose at one.