The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INT

This Day.

COURT-OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn, and Justices Mellor and

Shee.)
IN THE MATTER OF AN ATTORNEY.

Mr.Woollcott moved for a rule calling on an attorney to
show cause why he did not pay a sum of £7 10s., under
the following circumstances. It appeared that in the case
of Sullivan v. Goodyear the plaintiff sued an attorney at
Swansea for a sum of £5, and, having obtained judgment,
entrusted the writ to the attorney in question to be served
on the defendant. The attorney received the amount, but
when applied for payment gave some evasive answer. The
plaintiff then commenced an action against him;and suc-
ceeded in getting a judge's order for the £5, and £2 10s.
costs.

Mr. Justice Blackburn considered that all tbat was neces-
sary for the plaintiff to do was to get execution on the
judge's order.

Rule refused.

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, the Lord Chic.
Baron, Sir J. P. Wilde, and a Special Jury.)
RYVES AND RYVES V. TEE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The examination of Mr. Nethercliffe, the expert, which
commenced yesterday, was resumed this morning with a
view to identify the handwriting of George 111. and other
parties, whose names were appended to some of the docu-
ments put in evidence on behalf of the petitioner.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating and a Common Jury.
HAFFER V. FULLER.

This was an action to recover £2l 145., to which the
plaintiff pleaded that he was not indebted beyond £2
Is. 6d., which he paid into court.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Brandt appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Tindal Atkinson for the
defendant.

The plaintiff is a coach-builder, carrying on business in
Long-acre, under the name of King and Co., a firm which
had been established for more than a century ; and the
defendant is a doctor, residing at Albany-street, Regent's-
park, and was in extensive practice.
From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that he
was the inventor and patentee of " the miniatur•
brougham," which was very much patronised. In 1864
the plaintiff placed himself in communication with him
respecting the hire of a brougham, but ultimately agreed
to purchase one, for which he paid £lOO in cash, and gave
a bill for the remainder. The brougham was duly delivered,
but in the early part of 1865 it was sent back to the plaintiff
to be repaired, the defendant in the meantime being sup-
plied with the use of another brougham. The brougham
was again damaged, and sent to the plaintiff, and during
its repairs the defendant was again supplied by him with a
brougham. The charge was made for the repairs and hire
of the broughams.
This evidence was confirmed, and it was stated that the
charges mado were those usual in the trade.
For the defence it was contended that the defendant had
bought the brougham with the distinct understanding that
it was to bo kept in repair for 12 months, and that, while
under repairs, the plaintiff was to give the defendant the
free use of another brougham, which was most positively
denied by the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE WAY STREET ACCIDENTS ARE OCCASIONED.—WM.
Mal kin, a coachman in the employ of Mr. R. Mullinger,
job-master, of Chester-street, Grosvenor-place, was charged
before Mr. Knox with being drunk and incapable of driving
a pair of horses attached to a carriage.
Sergeant Edwards, 2 C, said that while in Bruton-street,
Bond-street, the previous afternoon his attention was
called to the defendant by a gentleman, who said he was
driving is a reckless manner. He went after the de-
fendant, who was in charge of a pair of high-spirited
horses, and found him sitting on the box, the horses going
at a trot and the teins hanging down quite slack, the de-
fendant being helplessly drunk. He then took the de-
fendant into custody, and sent the horses and carriages
home.
The defendant said he was sorry for what had occurred.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the sergeant said the streets
wore very crowded at the time, and the defendant was
driving to the common danger of passengers.
Inspector Bowles said the defendant was very drunk.
Mr. Knox said it was shown that the streets were
crowded, and that the defendant was drunk and driving a
pair of high-spirited horses, and the defendant might be
thankful that no accident occurred. The public must be
protected, and the defendant would have to pay a fine of
40s. or a month.