The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-22 00:00:00

COURT OF RXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lcrd Chief Baron andfßarona Martin, Channel],
and Pigott.

BAXANDALE Y. LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. Bovill was engaged this morning in further arguing
this case. It related to the terms upon which the plaintiffs
were entitled to carry goods in connection with the South-
Western Railway Company. The case was entirely devoid
of interest.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Baron Bramwell.)

PROCTER V. HOLLINGSWORTH.

This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of
exchange for £5OO, which it was alleged was accepted by
the defendant. The defendant denied the liability, and
pleaded never indebted.
Mr. Iluddleston, in stating the case, said the plain-
tiff in the action, and for whom he appeared,
was formerly in partnership with Mr. Moore, who was the
drawer of the bill. The defendant, according to the state-
ment of the learned counsel, was formerly a gardener, em-
ployed at Winchmore, and an intimacy having sprung up
between him and Mr. Moore he eventually asked him to
oblige him with the loan of £5. The sum was lent by Mr.
Moore, he being informed that although the position of
the defendant was not much there, his father was a man of
property, and that at his death the defendant would in-
herit a largo amount of property. Various other money
transactions took place between defendant and Mr. Moore,
when the transaction arose which gave rise to the present
action. The defendant, wishing to purchase a farm, ap-
plied to Mr. Moore to lend him £4OO. This Mr. Moore
agreed to do, and the bill in dispute was then drawn up
for £5OO at nine months,which was to cover all the former
small loans and the £4OO. Mr. Moore then, at the dissolu-
tion of the partnership with Mr. Procter, passed the bill
to him, but payment was refused, and the present action
was instituted. The defendant denied his liability on the
ground that no value had been received for the bill.
The case is being tried by a special jury, and is expected
to last over the whole day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief Justice Erie and Justices Smith, Willes, and

Keating.)
HARVEY V. MARTIN.

Mr. Quain moved for a new trial in this case, in a verdict
which had been given for plaintiff for .£39. The plaintiff
sold defendant a quantity of fish manure, and when pay-
ment was applied for it was stated that the defendant had
bought the manure from a limited liability company with
which ho was connected, and not in is private capacity,
and therefore he was not liable for the value of the pro-
perty.
Their lordships postponed their decision.
CHURCHILL V. --

This was an application calling upon tho plaintiff to
give security for costs. He was a seafaring man, for-
merly serving on board the ship Queen, and he brought
this action for balance of wages and wrongful dismissal.
As the plaintiff was now in America, but proposed to be
in Lon don when the action was tried, it was thought he
ought under tho circumstances to give security for the
costs of the action, supposing the verdict went against
him.
The Court granted a rule nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

s---

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ASSAULT ON THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BAKERS'
INSTITUTE.—James M`Lean, a baker, of No. 17, Rupert-
street, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with being drunk
and assaulting "William Ruddle, superintendent of the
Baker's House of Call and Institute, Rupert-street.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, said
he was instructed by the committee of an institute, called
the Bakers' House of Call and Institute, an institution
formed by a number of highly respectable persons—bakers,
millers, the clergy, and others, Lord Ebony being a patron,
and the prisoner was charged with assaulting the superin-
tendent of the institute. Although an institute it was
not a union or club from which respectable journeymen
were excluded, but the prisoner was one of a class who
was anxious to prevent respectable men resorting to a place
where they could meet together and have harmless recrea-
tion, and was in the habit of going to the place and in-
sulting the members and causing a disturbance. On
Saturday night the prisoner went in a state of intoxication,
interfered with a member who was entering the place, and
wanted him to fight, and on the superintendent going out
to quell the disturbance the prisoner behaved in a dis-
orderly manner, and was then given into custody, and
while on the way to the station the prisoner gave the
superintendent a blow on the back of the head and nearly
knocked him down. It was wished that the prisoner
should be taught that if a respectable class of persons
chose to meet together they were not to be interfered with
by a person like him.

The Superintendent said that while on the way to the
station on Saturday, after giving the prisoner into custody
for creating a disturbance, the prisoner said, "Take that
you —," and gave him a blow on the back of his head,
nearly knocking him down.

Police-constable 214 C corroborated the complainant.
The prisoner called a witness, who said the prisoner
was first struck by the superintendent.
Mr. Tyrwhitt fined the prisoner 10s. or 7 days.