The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-05 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The Grand Juries were this morning sworn in before Mr.
Justice LITTLEDALE who briefly addressed them on the nature
of the duties they were called upon to discharge.
The Court then took the special paper, and several cases
were struck out, the Counsel concerned not being in at-
tendance.

WILES V. COOPER AND ANOTHER.
Mr. ERLE stated this case, which was an action against two
magistrates for false imprisonment. The plaintiff was a car-
penter, living at Cheltenham, and the defendants were two
magistrates of the county of Gloucester. On the Ist of May,
1834, a complaint had been preferred before the defendants by
a person named Aaron Willicombe, against the plaintiff for
wages due him, and the parties having appeared, the
magistrates made an order upon the plaintiff to pay
Willieombe 2/. 2s. Bd. for wages due as a journeyman
carpenter, and 4s. 6d. costs. The plaintiff refused
to pay, and stated that he had no property on which the
amount could be levied by distress ; upon which the magi-
strates issued their warrant, sentencing him to two months'
imprisonment in the gaol of Cheltenham, in default of pay-
ment. The plaintiff, after remaining for eight days in gaol,
paid the money and was discharged, and then brought his ac-
tion for false imprisonment against the Magistrates, subject
to the decision of the Court. If the Court was of opinion
that the defendants were authorised to make the order, and
imprison the plaintiff for non-payment of the amount, then
the plaintiff Consented to a judgment being entered of noli
prosequi. If on the contrary, then the defendants would sub-
--1;t to judgnient being entered against them, with 51. damages.
The case turned upon the construction of the 20th Geo. 11.,
chap. 19, the 4th Geo. IV., chap. 34, anu Cue 3.'.1 Geo. IV.,
chap. 18. It did not appear that there was any statement
before the Magistrates, of what relation the complainant stood
in towards the plaintiff, and unless it appeared that he was a
servant, and seeking wages as such, the Magistrates could
have no jurisdiction.

Mr. Alenmins was heard in reply, and—
The COURT took time to look into the Acts referred to.

EXCHEQUER COURT,(THIS DAY.

AMOS V. WALKER.

This was an action for 81. 125., the price of a pocket of hops,
which was tried beforo Mr. Justice Parke, at Worcester.
Mr. Baron GURNEY read over the Judge's note of the trial,
from which it appeared that the hops had been sold to the de-
fendant by a person named Ward who was indebted to him.
Ward was called upon the trial and gave contradictory evi-
dence ; the jury however believed that the hops were sold and
the invoice made out in Ward's name, and therefore found for
the defendant.

Mr. RICHARDS appeared this morning to chew cause against
a rule for a new trial, which had been obtained on the ground
of misdirection.

The Court, however, without troubling him, called upon
Mr. Whitmore to support his rule. He contended that the
Learned Judge had merely left it to the jury to say whether
the goods had been sold in the name of Ward in place of
leaving it to them to say whether they had been sold with the
consent of the plaintiff to the defendant, and whether the de-
fendant was aware at the time of the sale that the hops came
from the plaintiff, and that Ward was merely his agent.
After a good deal of law arguments between the Learned
Gentleman and the Court the rule was dismissed.

ELECTION COMMITTEE_(TIIIS
D A Y. )
CORK.
Mr. THESSIGIR having concluded his summing up, on be-
half of the petitioners, at the hour of adjournment yes-
terday,
Mr. MEREWETIIER opened the proceedings of the Commit-
tee this morning, by replying to the arguments of the Learned
Gentleman, and then went on to state the evidence which he
would produce on behalf of the sitting Member, with a view to
maintain his property qualification, and to prove that the no-
tices served upon the voters were legally served.
The Learned Gentleman had not concluded when we left.
ENNIS.

This Committee met at ten o'clock this morning, and pro-
ceeded with the scrutiny. The sitting Member was one
a-head of Mr. Finucane, the petitioner, at half-past one
o'clock.

MONMOUTH.
. .
The scrutiny still goes on, and thus far, the sitting Member
and the petitioner are, alternately, one vote above the other, or
equal in number. On each side four have been struck off the
poll, and when we left, the vote of a person who polled for the
sitting Member was under consideration.