The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-24 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

The City and County Grand Juries were this morning sworn in
before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, who briefly, addressed them upon
the duties they were called upon to discharge.

BELL v. BROTHERTON.
Mr. ALEXANDER. moved in this case for a rule to show cause why
the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside and a new trial
had on the payment of costs. It was an action on the case sued at
the last Lancaster assizes before Mr. Justice Alderson, in which a
verdict had passed for the plaintiff, damages 601. The facts were
these—the defendant, a livery-stable keeper, living near Manches-
ter, had charge of a horse belonging to the plaintiff, and the horse
having been secured with only one halter, broke out of the stable at
night, fell into a pit in the corner of the yard, and was killed. The dc-
fence was, the plaintiff had given instructions that the horse should
be secured with only one halter, lest he should fret himself ; but
Chartres, an hostler, who was to prove this fact, was unable to reach
Lancaster until a short time after the trial had terminated. The
Learned Counsel read affidavits from the defendant's attorney and
the witness Chartres, in support of this statement, and contended
that he was entitled to the rule prayed for on payment of costs.—
COURT—Take a rule.
CLARKE v. HAMLET.
Mr. ALEXANDER moved in this case for rule to show cause why
a suggestion under the Westminster Court of Requests Act should
not be entered on the record. It was an action brought to recover
a sum of 601. for agency commission in letting a house belonging
to the defendant in Grosvenor-square, tried before Lord Denman at
Guildhall.—Verdict for the plaintiff, ss. The question turned upon
whether or not the house had been let through the instrumentality
of the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN—I recollect the case, and I thought there was
nothing in it to go to the Jury, and that the plaintiff should have
been nonsuited.—Take a rule.

WALSH V. BRINSLEY.
Mr. Serjeant AITCHERLEY moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
It was an action for a malicious prosecution, under the provisions
of the 6th of George IV., chap. 110; and 3d and 4th of William
IV., chap. 55, tried before Mr. Justice PARKE at the York Assi-
zes. The plaintiff was master of a vessel called the Norwich Castle
trading between Selby and Yarmouth, and the defendant was one of
the owners. The plaintiff was in the habit of purchasing articles at
one port, on his own account, and selling them to advantage at the
other, with which the defendant was dissatisfied, and required himto deliver up the certificate of the vessel, for the purpose of appoint-
ing another master. Plaintiff called upon the Collector of the
port of Selby, and ascertained that the officers did not require the
certificate, which he then refused to deliver up, and the defendant
for this refusal obtained a conviction before a Magistrate named
Foster, under the 27th sec., 6 Geo. IV., for wilfully refusing to
deliver up the certificate by which a penalty of 1001. was incurred,
or imprisonment for any period between three and twelve months.
In default of payment of the fine the plaintiff was committed to the
Wakefield House of Correction, from which he was discharged at
the expiration of six weeks, the Court of King's Bench having
quashed the conviction. It was for this malicious prosecution that
the action had bean brought, and after the case had been opened
the Learned Judge suggested that a juror should be withdrawn, as
the allegation in the declaration was insufficient to sustain the ac-
tion. It merely stated that the plaintiff had been discharged out of
custody, instead of setting forth that the conviction had been
quashed for illegality.
COURT—Take a rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

PASSITER v. BROOKES.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule to show cause why a
verdict against the defendant for 350/. damages should not be set
aside, upon the groped of the Lord Chief Justice having rejected
certain evidence upon the trial. It was an action by the plaintiff,
a timber merchant, against the defendant, a builder. The de-
fendant had built some houses for a person named Sutton, who
subsequently gave up all his right and interest in the houses to the
defendant, but a previous agreement had been made between the
Plaintiff and Sutton, that the latter should grant him a lease of the
premises for 350/., in return for timber supplied. That agreement
he (Sergeant Talfourd) was not permitted by the Lord Chief
Justice to put in as evidence, because the only plea was the general
issue.

The CouuT ruled that the Learned Sergeant should put the
general issue on record.
Mr. Serjeant TALrounn put in an affidavit by the desire of the
attorney for the assignees of Sutton,- describing the nature of the
former proceedings.
The COURT granted a rule to amend the plea.
COUSINS v. PALSER.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved the Court for a rule to set
aside the verdict in this case, on the ground of affidavits to be pro-
duced. It was tried at the last London Sittings before the Lord
Chief Justice, being an action of trover for toys, and a verdict for
100/. was given for the plaintiff. It was proved on the trial that
there was a regular agreement in existence between the parties for
a proper transfer of the goods, so that there could be no trover.
The affidavits of Mrs. Chuckman and other witnesses, were read
to prove that the agreement was duly executed by the parties, and
that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff 21. per week in conside-
ration of the transfer of the stock and business, which was never
fulfilled, and the plaintiff retook possession of the business. The
affidavits further stated that the defendant had surreptitiously ob-
tained possession of the agreement.
The Court granted the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

EVANS v. DAVIS.
Mr. Cfrwrox moved, on behalf of the defendant in this case,
for a rule to show cause why the verdict obtained by the plaintiff
should not be set aside. The trial took place at the late Car-
marthen assizes before ilfr. Justice Williams. The Learned Gen-
tleman stated the facts of the case from an affidavit ; they were
these. The action was in Court so long ago as the Spring Assizes

D MARKET.
ly good, and the trade was some

SMITHFIEL
This day's supply was moderate
what brisk, at the following

PRICES PER STONE OF St
s. d. to s. d s. d. to s.i.
Interior Beasts -2 0 2 2 Inferior Sheep 2 4 2 6
Second quality ditto 2 6 210 Second quality ditto 2lO 3 2
Prime large Oxen 3 6' 3 8 Coarse-woolled ditto..... 310 4 0
Prime Scots, &c.
Large coarse Calves
Prime small ditto ........ 4 4 4 ti Small Porkers . 3 8 4 0
S.lckling Calves each. —.12 r 30 t Quarter old Pigs each, 10 u 14 0
_ .

1. TO SINK THE OFFA LS.

Beasts.
357