The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-28 00:00:00

GIDEON V DOWNES.

Mr. THESSIGER having obtained a rule for a new trial in
this case, Mr. MAULE showed cause against it.
The facts of the case were as follows :—The plaintiff was
a merchant of St. Helena, and having empowered a broker
in London to purchase certain goods for him, sundry pack-
ages of glass, vinegar, and other articles were bought for ex-
portation. The broker went on 'Change, and meeting
Captain Gaskill, of the Meta, a vessel about to sail to St.
Helena, inquired of him whether he was willing to take a
frieght to St. Helena. Captain Gaskill agreeing to do so,
plaintiff's broker sent the property to the wharf ; but as
Gaskill did not ship it on board the kieta, plaintiff brought
an action against the defendant, who was owner of the
vessel, and recovered damages to the amount of 201.
Mr. MAULE, for the plaintiff, now contended that at the
time of the broker proposing to send the goods by the Mete,
Gaskill made no objection to receiving them, nor inquired
of what nature they were.
Mr. THESSIGER contended that it was a perverse verdict
given by the Jury, who were unable to judge of the merits
of the cose.

Lord A BINGER ordered the rule to be made absolute;
with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

CRIM. Cox.—Mr. Thomas Harte Franks, a Lieutenant
of the 10th Regiment of Infantry, was opposed by Mr.
Nicholls on the part of the Rev. Benjamin Burton John-
son, the only creditor, for damages awarded in an action
for criminal conversation with his wife. He was supported
by Mr. Cooke.
The record in the action " Johnson v. Franks" was pro-
duced by Mr. Soll, a solicitor. The action was tried at
the last Summer Assizes, at Exeter, before Lord Denman
and a Special Jury. A verdict was given for the plaintiff,
damages 1,0001., and the costs amounted to 4751. His
Lordship had certified that the cause was a fit one for a
Special Jury. Mr. Soil, in answer to a question of Mr.
Cooke, said he was the agent of Mr. Bennett, of Plymouth.
He did not keoW that the plaintiff resided in Ireland. The
damages were laid at 5,0001.

The insolvent was examined by Mr. Nicholls respecting
some property he had derived under his father's will. He
was entitled to the third of 2,0001., which his brother had
advanced when he entered the service in 1825. He had
paid 4501. on his ensigncy and 2541. for the lieutenancy ;
his name was down at the Horse Guards for a Company,
the purchase of which would come to 1,1001. He denied
that his brother had any money in his possession belonging
to him. He has had remittances from his brother in Ire-
and. He had no property save his pay as a Lieutenant.
Mr. NictioLLs addressed the Court in aggravation of
punishment, after which—the Learned CHIEF COMMIS-
SIONER, in giving the judgment of the' Court, remarked
that very soon after the constitution of the Court, the prin-
ciple had been laid down in cases like the present to be
guided in the adjudication by the amount of damages ascer-
tained by the Jury. The judgment of the Court was that
the insolvent should be entitled to receive the benefit of the
Act so soon as he should have been in prison for a period
of twelve calendar months at the suit of the Rev. Mr.
Johnson, for the damages recovered in an action for criminal
conversation with his wife. The insolvent was ordered to
be confined within the walls of the King's Bench Prison,
and the judgment to be computed from the time of filing
the petition.
On the application of Mr. Nicholls, the Reverend oppo-
sing creditor was appointed the assignee, and the Court al-
lowed the costs of the opposition.