The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-05 00:00:00

DEWAR V. I'URDAY.

Lord DENMAN read his notes of the trial. This was
an action for the violation of the copyright of the song of
" The Old English Gentleman," and, after the plaintiff had
gone through his case, the defendant's Counsel applied for
a nonsuit, on the ground that sufficient evidence had not
been given of the originality of the composition. His
Lordship was at first inclined to nonsuit the plaintiff on
that ground ; but he said that he would reserve the point
for the consideration of the Court, and that he should
wish to take the opinion of the Jury on the question of
fact. In consequence of this the defendant called wit-
nesses, and the Jury retired. They were absent for several
hours, and returned into Court on the following morning,
saying that they could not agree upon their verdict, and
were not likely to agree. His Lordship was then under
the necessity of discharging the Jury, or of acting on his
first impression, and nonsuiting the plaintiff. He thought
the latter was the lesser evil, and therefore he directed a
nonsuit. A rule had since been obtained to set aside this
nonsuit, and have anew trial.

Sir W. FOLLETT showed cause against the rule, and
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL was heard in support of it.
Rule absolute.

ROBINSON V. ROGERS.

This was an action against the defendant, who had been
churchwarden of the united parishes of St. Giles in the
Fields, and St. George, Bloomsbury, to recover a balance
due from him to the parish. The questions raised at the
trial on behalf of the defendant were, first, that the action
could not be maintained by the parish against a parishioner ;
and, secondly, that the defendant, being a churchwarden
and an officer of the parish, the proceeding against him
should have been before a Magistrate, and not by action.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Williams, when a
verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a motion, on
the two objections above stated. A rule having been
obtained to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, _

Mr. THESSIGER showed cause against the rule ; and the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL in support of it.

Rule absolute for a nonsuii.

NUGEE V. GRANT.

Mr. J. JERVIS stated that this was an action upon a
tailor's bill, and was tried a few days ago in the Bail Court
before Mr. Justice Williams, when a verdict was given for
the plaintiff for 501. The plaintiff was the well-known
fashionable tailor, and the defendant the nephew of Sir
Colquhoun Grant. The defendant had been in India, and
on his return he ordered some clothes, which were charged
at 781., that being the amount alleged to be incurred in six
months. A bill had been given, and an action brought on
the bill, and the declaration also contained the common
money counts. The defendant pleaded infancy, and that
plea having been proved, the claim on the bill was at an
end. The question then was, whether the clothes supplied
were necessaries ? One of the witnesses called for the plain-
tiff said that these clothes were necessaries, and the Jury,
two of whom were tailors, considerately adopted this idea,
and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of 501.
As the defendant had been arrested for 78/., the Learned
Counsel now applied for a rule to deprive the plaintiff of
his costs.
The COURT thought that this was not a case for its in-
terference.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

FARR ER V. SCHENKE AND ANOTHER.

In this case, which was not concluded yesterday when
we went to press, the rule was made absolute, on payment
of costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.