The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-31 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Lord WITARNCLIFF was this morning awcrn in as Lord Koepail
o th© Privy Seal.

WILMAR V. LYNN.

This was an action brought by an upholsterer for goods sold
and delivered, tried before the Sheriff of London, an in which a
verdict was had for the plaintiff 121. 75.. 2d. A rule had been
subsequently obtained by Mr. Godson callint on the plaintiff to
shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial had.

Mr. GITNNING now appeared to show cause against the rule.
Th question was whether the wife the defendant was authorised
by him in ordering the goods, and the Learned Counsel contended
that as the husband had recognised the agency of his wife in a for-
mer transaction with the plaintiff and had paid the bill, the plain-
tiff was justified in supposing that the defendant had recongnised
her agency in the transaction which formed the subject of the pre-
sent action.

Mr. GODSON replied.
The Court observed that, from the evidence at the trial, the
Learned. Counsel for the defendant should have insisted on his
right to a non-suit. It was plain that there was collusion between
the plaintiff and the defendant's wife, and that was a question
which should have been submitted by the Learned Judge to the
Jury.. .. . .

liule for a new trial absolute.
TENNANT V. FLETCHER.

In this case the defendant had become insolvent, and had giver►
to the plaintiff, his landlord, from whom he held a' farm at the
yearly rent of 5421., a warrant of attorney to secure him in the
payment of a year's rent, due at Lady-day, 1834. A rule had been
subsequently obtained by
Mr. RICHARDS calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the
judgment entered on the warrant of attorney, and the sexeral write
of execution tried out in the same, should not be set aside, and.
why Thomas Gitton should not restore the goods and money levied
under the said warrant, the same having been obtained from the
defendant Fletcher, by fraud and misrepresentation, and als:0 why
the costs of the present action should not be paid by the sail; Thos•
Git ton.

Sir J. CAMPBELL now appeared to show cause against the rule,
and submitted that the answer put into the charge of fraud and,
misrepresentation, was so full and satisfactory, tbrt the Court coal
not hesitate to discharge the rule.
Mr. LEIGH was heard in support of tlr., rule.
Lord DENMAN said the charge of liming obtained the warrant of
attorney by fraud and misrepresentation, had been fully answered,
and therefore the rule mils,t 'oe discharged, with costs.

EXCHE.f4CER COURT-(THIS DAY.

the sittings of the Court this morning, Lord ABINGER de"
tivLred judgment in the ease of

JONES V. WATERS.

His LORDSHIP said, the plaintiff in the action was the bellinae
appointed by the Corporation of Brecon, who claimed the privilege
arising from such appointment, of making proclamation of all sales
and auctions within the town. That privilege the defendant had
invaded, which gave rise to the action. The Jury had found-
that the custom (upon which only the claim of the privilege could
be held good) was well founded, and accordingly found for the
plaintiff. The defendant had obtained a rule for a new trial, which
had been very fully argued. The whole question turned upon the
existence of the custom—that point had been settled by the
Jury, and the Court saw nothing in the custom contrail
to law. They could not see any thing in it contrary 9
law and reason, though there could be no doubt it had obtaineo
before the art of printing had been thought of, or at all even
before it had been brought to such perfection as it had now arrived
at. They were of opinion that the appointment made by the Cor-
poration was good, and that of course the plaintiff had the exclu-
sive privilege claimed. The rule was therefore discharged.