The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, ocroBER 19, HOG

87 SP
122 123
40 45
13 15
4 6
85 63
70 72

115 119
25 27
5 6

I 6 118
126 127

90 92
WI 5i

35 40
33 35

- - I
1241 1242;

85 87
18 2O
11/4) 20
118 119
82 64
54 55
124 125
2 3 p
101 11
85 90

1221 123.1
If 2pl
92 J 4

37 39
Id 23
103 105

65 67
99 101.

34 35
9 10 p,
120 ,25

1 2P

1 In
72 74
114 118
150 154

25 i

117 k 17
12(11

53 21 31

87
18} 18

11E1

154
121 i

87 6

1221
81

1041

1011 ti
1001 3 i i
191 i

1061 7 61

BOW-STREET.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—This Day.

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

ACTION AGAINST SIR R. PEEL, BART., M.P.-A NEW TRIAL

GRANTED.----MILLINGTON V. SIR R. PEEL, BART., M.P.

This case came before the Court again this (Friday)
afternoon, upon the application of the defendant for a new
trial on the ground of his unavoidable absence at the origi-
nal hearing of the suit. _ _ _ .

Mr. Oliver Freshfield, who appeared for the defendant,
put in an affidavit to the effect that Sir Robert Peel heard
nothing of the summons until he saw the case reported in
the newspapers. He had no knowledge of the plaintiff, nor
had he ordered any goods from him.
His Honour—That is a defence upon the merits.
Mr. Freshfield—Certainly. We are prepared to show
that Sir R. PCel did not order the goods.
Mr. Baylis (for the plaintiff)-1 beg to say that I have
affidavits in answer to that filed by the baronet.
Mr. Osgood (the registrar)—You had better send them
in.

His Honour then read an affidavit made by the plaintiff
yesterday (Thursday), to the effect that in July, 1864, he re-
ceived an order from John A. Watson, whom he believed
to be the agent of the defendant at Geneva, to forward
samples of glass to Villa Lammermoor, at Geneva, and that
the samples were duly forwarded as requested. Subse-
quently, in March, 1866, plaintiff wrote to Watson at Villa
Lammermoor, and received for answer that the goods had
been duly received. Application had been made on four
or five occasions to the defendant, and finally this action
was brought. The second affidavit was to the effect that
the goods had been forwarded to Watson, who was de-
scribed as the steward of Sir Robert Peel, at Villa
Lammermoor.

His Honour said he would grant a new trial on payment
of the hosts of the day.
DlrFreshfield considered that the question of costs should
be reserved, as it was evident the summons had not been
served on the defendant. It was well known that at the
time of the service nearly all the members of Parliament
were out of town, and at that time Sir Robert Peel was in
Paris.

His Honour—The summons was left in accordance with
the terms of the act of Parliament.

Mr. Freshfield—The house was shut up.
His Honour—The summons was delivered to a man
who is described as a person above 16 years of age. Plain-
tiff will be entitled to call the officer of the Westminster
County Court to prove the service. Still as the question
was raised, the costs would be reserved until the hearing
of the new cause.

Mr. Baylis—l would ask your Honour to order the at-
tendance of Sir Robert Peel at the next hearing.

His Honour—l have no power to do so. You must sub-
pcena. Sir Robert Peel in the ordinary manner.
Mr. Baylis—We have had some difficulty in serving the
defendant.

Mr. Freshfield—That is not true.
His Honour —I have granted a new trial upon the merits,
reserving the question of costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

A STRANGE VISITOR.—A peculiar-looking individual,
who refused to give either name or address, was placed
at the bar charged with assaulting Alfred Clench, a cab-
man, by first kicking and striking him, and afterwards
presenting a pistol at him.
Clench said he resided in New Church-court, Strand, and
about half-past 7 last evening he heard some one knocking at
his room door, and on opening it he found the prisoner in the
passage. He made a rush at him (witness) and seized him
by the throat, when a violent struggle ensued, during
which the prisoner kicked and hit him in the face. The
prisoner said ho had called to see a Mr. Wilson, but when
he (witness) told him that was not his name he went
away, but returned in about a quarter of an
hour armed with a revolver, which he presented
at witness, and swore he would shoot him. He (witness)
seized the pistol, and succeeded in taking it from the pri-
soner, but on examination he found it was not loaded.
He then put the prisoner out of the house, but he con-)
tinned his annoyance for so long a time that he (witness .
was compelled to send for a police-constable, and on the
prisoner becoming aware of what he had done, he took to
his heels and ran off at the top of his speed, but he was
ultimately stopped and taken into custody.
Police-constable Leeman, 157 F, said he was on duty iu
the Strand last evening, and was called to New Church-
court to remove the prisoner, who was drunk. He refused
to give his address, or to offer any explanation of his strange
conduct, and as he refused to desist from creating a dis-
turbance he took him into custody.

The Magistrate asked the prisoner what he had to say
in answer to the charge ?

The prisoner, in reply, said he had nothing to say. He
did not take the pistol to do any harm to the complainant,
it was out of rerair, and he was going to have it mended.
The Magistrate told the prisoner he should not let him
go until he had caused some inquiry to be made about him,
and for that purpose he should remand- him to enable the
police to do so.