The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-07 00:00:00

GARItY V. JUDYINS.

Mr. H UMFREY moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict for the defendant should not be set aside, and a new
trial had. The case had been tried before the Sheriff of
Middlesex ; the plaintiff, who was an attorney, seeking to
recover the amount of 191. odd from the defendant, for
work and labour done, and money out of pocket. The
plaintiff proved his case by witnesses, and all that the de-
fendant relied on was cn agreement which he alleged to
have been made, that be should only Pay the plaintiff the
costs which he was out of pocket ; but he called no evidence
to substantiate this. Notwithstanding he produced no cor-
roboration of his bare assertion, the Jury immediately found
a verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Baron PARSE—Take a rule, certainly.
ABBOTT AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF ARBOR, V. OUSELEY.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS said that this case had been tried
in July, in this Court, before Lord Abinger, when a verdict
was found for the defendant. The Learned Counsel now
moved for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of evi-
dence, and a misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge.
Mr. Arbor, the bankrupt, had been engaged by the defen-
dant, Sir Gore Ouseley, to build a house, which he agreed
to do for a certain sum. On going to Sir Gore Ouseley, he
found the plans so different from the original, that he ob-
jected to sign the agreement, unless there were appended a
stipulation to pay him a certain sum for additional labour,
when his wish being complied with, he. signed the document.
Before completing the work lie became a bankrupt, and the
plaintiff finished it. The defendant refused to pay the
amount, on the ground that Arbor had not completed his
contract, although no complaint was made of the plaintiff's
work.—The COURT granted a rule.

STODART V. DRYDEN.
This was an action on a mortgage deed for 6001.,
tried before Lord Abinger, at Durham,' when the Jury
found for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that the
deed was not his, but a countetfeit one.
Mr. CRESWELL now moved for a Rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
Clad. He founded his application on the fact of Lord
Abinger having rejected as evidence at the trial a declaration
of a person named M'Crie, one of the witnesses to the mort-
gage. The Learned Counsel cited several cases in con-
firmation of his views.

The Comr thought no sufficient grounds had been shown
for the motion, and would not grant the Rule.

BELL V. lIARRISON AND OTHERS.

This case was tried at Durham, before Lord Abinger,
and a verdict to the amount of one hundred and forty
pounds found for the plaintiff. The action was brought by
the plaintiff, who lived at South Shields, against the defen-
dants, the Directors of the Stanhope Railway, for a nuisance.
The plaintiff complained that, by reason of the noise and
smoke proceeding from the Railway, his house, which was
originally worth 8501., had been reduced in value to 3501.
The plaintiff laid damages at 3501., and the Jury gave a
verdict for 140/.

Mr. WATSON now moved for a new trial on the ground
of excessive damages, and said that South Shields being a
large manufacturing town, might be considered full of smoke.
There were some alkali works near the plaintiff's, the smoke
of which destroyed all vegetation, in fact it destroyed the
coat on one's back.—(Laughter.) Besides, since the com-
mencement of the action, the alleged cause of nuisance had
considerably diminished.
The Court granted a conditional rule that the verdict
should be final, unless the plaintiff could show at any future
time that the nuisance was greater than at the time the ver-
dict was found.

PALACE COEUT.-FRIDAY.

LEE, ESQ., V. RAVENSCRO'YT.

This was an action brought by J. Y. Lee, Esq., a Bar-
rister of the Chancery Bar, to recover of the defendant, the
well known wig-maker of Serle-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields,
ti.e sum of 19 guineas.

Mr. Ross, with 'whom was Mr. Gaselee, appeared for
I.ie plaintiff ; and Mr. Erle and Mr. Bosanquet for the de-
Fendant,

It appeared that the plaintiff had assisted the defendant
with loans of money, and an agreement was entered into
between the parties that the defendant should assign the
lease of his premises ; that the plaintiff should repair them,
and grant an under-lease of the loWer part of the house.
Two sums of 101. bad been advanced, and 121. paid for plate
glass. The two former sums were now sought to be reco-
vered. Letters were read, written by the defendant, in
which he stated that Lord Abinger, the Speaker of the
House of Commons, Mr. Horace Twiss, and other's, were
his customers, whose debts he could in time collect.
For the defendant it was contended that the sums had
been advanced under the agreement which was read, and
the consideration was to be an assignment of the lease ;
and that the defendant had proposed to give security on his
furniture.
The Learned JUDGE told the Jury the question for them
to determine was, whether the money had been advanced
according to the agreement or independently.
The pleadings were very lengthy. •
The Jury, after a short -consultation, found a verdict for
the defendant. —The trial lasted four hours.

PAGE V. TUCKER AND WIFE.
This was an action by a widow to recover 461. Is. Id.
for sundry goods and money lent to Mrs. Mathews, a
widow shopkeeper, from the Ist of September, 1834, to
June. 1835. It appeared that Mrs. Mathews was married
to Mr. Tucker in May last, and part of the articles were
furnished since her marriage. It was contended that he
was not liable, and that the items had not been correctly
proved. It was proved by one witness that. Mr. Mathews
had been dead fifteen months.
The Learned JUDGE said the Jury would take the bill
and give such a verdict as would meet the justice of the case.
The Jury found a verdict for 361. 165., and the attorney
said be must bring another action against Mr. Tucker for
the difference, the Jury having deducted the articles fur-
nished since the marriage.

Snow fell in the neighbourhood of Newbury. during
;he forenoon of Wednesday,