The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-03 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(MONDAY)

IN EE MOItLEY.
Mr. PLATT showed cause against a rule of Mr. Thesi-
ger's, obtained last Term, calling on Messrs. W. and Jas.
Morley, of Gutter-lane, to show cause why an attachment
should not issue against them for contempt in not obeying
subpcenas of this Court requiring their attendance as wit-
nesses, in a certain cause, to produce a deed, the promoter
of the rule being the defendant in that cause, who alleged
that the verdict went against him in consequence of the
non-attendance of the witnesses in question. The Learned
Counsel contended that there was no ground for the rule.
The witnesses had been subpcened in January, and on the
13th of May, the day before the trial, the defendant's at-
torney called on Mr. W. Morley, requiring his attendance
in Court the next morning at ten o'clock, when it was ul-
timately arranged that Mr. Morley's clerk should attend
at that hour, to ascertain when the witnesses would be
wanted. Mr. James Morley was at this time out of town,
and was no party to the arrangement, and on the next
morning the clerk, on attending at Westminster, found that
the cause was over. Under these circumstances, it was
maintained that the Messrs. Morley could not be held as
bound by the subpcenas, after having complied with the
agreement with the defendant's attorney.
Mr. THESIGER, in support of the rule, denied that the
clerk had attended at ten o'clock, and maintained that the
rule ought to be made absolute, as the defendant had lost
the trial by the absence of the witnesses.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said that the rule must be dis-
charged as regarded Mr. J. Morley, and that the case
should go to the Master on the point of fact as to the at-
tendance of the clerk.

COMMON PLEAS.-MONDAY.

SHACICELL V. ROSIER.

This action was tried the London Sittings after last
Term. It was brought by plaintiff, as the proprietor of
the John Bull newspaper, against the defendant, on an in-
demnity for the publication of a libel which was published
in that paper. It appeared at the trial, from the evidence of
Mr. Weaver, the sub-editor, that the defendant called at the
John Bull office, and tendered him the article in question for
publication, at the same time handing him his card, as a
voucher for the correctness of his communication. The
article in question, through the channel of a violent attack
on the Whig Ministry, contained a libellous charge upon
a Mr. Chalmers, who shortly after its appearance, gave
notice of action for libel against the plaintiff, as proprietor
of the paper. Plaintiff upon this instructed his solicitor to
apply to defendant on the subject, who, after a few inter-
views, gave a written indemnity against the consequences.
The action proceeded to trial, and Mr. Chalmers reco-
vered damages to a large amount against the John Bull.
Plaintiff then addressed the present defendant to bear him
harmless, according to the terms of his indemnity, which de-
fendant declined doing, and the present action was accor-
dingly brought, in which plaintiff recovered damages to the
amount of 326/. Ss. 10d. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this
day moved for a rule to show why judgment should be
arrested, on the ground that the indemnity was nugatory,
the paper on which it was was written having been with-
out a stamp. He contended, therefore, that being with-
out a stamp, this was not a contract the law could enforce.
'The CHIEF JUSTICE considered the Learned Counsel
had raised a sufficient point to grant his motion.
The rule was granted accordingly.
SIIARPE V. JOHNSON.

The Learned Counsel for the defendant moved for a rule
to show cause why the defendant should not be discharged
out of the custody of the warden of the Fleet. He
grounded his motion first on an affidavit, which stated that
the Commissioner before whom the affidavit of debt bad
been sworn in Ireland was not a Commissioner of this
Court ; and, secondly, on the fact that proceedings had
been alrezdy taken, and judgment obtained from the Court
of Session in Scotland for the same cause of action.
The CHIEF JUSTICE considered that enough bad been
shown on the first. ground to grant leave to show cause.—
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF ORMSBY GORE, V. MORRIS AND

OTHERS.

Mr. Joux JERVIS moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a new
trial had. It was an action of ejectment, to recover posses-
sion of several cottages in the county of Carnarvon. It
was tried before Mr, Sergeant Taddy at the last Assizes,
when a verdict was found for the defendants. The grounds
on which he made the motion were, that the verdict was
against the evidence. It appeared that the defendants had
been ejected by a legal process from the said premises in
1830, but Mr. Gore, not wishing to turn them out, per-
mitted them to continue on the premises on paying him one
penny by way of rent, and signing an attachment ; but not-
withstanding this evidence the Jury found a verdict for the
defendants.—Rule granted.