The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-06 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY

DOE DEM. O. ALDERSIN.
Mr. Sergeant SPA NKIE said this was an action of eject-
tnent, which had been tried before Lord Tenterden at the
last Kent assizes, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The defendant was the tenant of a considerable estate
near Rochester by a lease from the Crown, one covenant
of which empowered the Crown, or the Commissioners of
Woods and Forests, at any time to resume the whole or
any part of the property upon giving a certain notice; and
that, in case the King should be advised to avail himself of
that right, arbitrators were to be appointed to determine
the amount of compensation to be paid to the tenant in re-
spect of the determining of the lease. The Crown io 1831
disposed of the property to Mr. Harmer, the attorney, who
was of course desirous of getting possession on as low terms as
possible, which were by turtling the tenant out without
paying him any compensation. Mr. Harmer thus be-
came possessed of the rights of the Crown, and was in
fact the lessor of the plaintiff. On the 31st January,
1832, the Crown gave the defendant notice of determining
the lease. The defendant appointed an arbitrator, and a
Mr. Murray was selected by the Crown, and in February
those persons met to determine the amount of the com-
pensation. They were proceeding in a train of settlement,
when Mr. Harmer interposed and prevented their going on.
This action of ejectment was then brought on the ground of
breaches of thecovenants of the lease. The breaches assigned
were nonpayment of rent, and not using the farm in a
husbandlike manner, and the Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff. Now the Learned Counsel contended that even
if there was any slight breach of the covenant, the Crown
had waved that by sending the notice of determining the
lase, and by appointing an arbitrator to award compensa-
tion to the tenant\ That was the main point upon which
.he Learned Counsel relied, and contended that the ver
dict should have been given for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff mat have known if there had been any breaches
'of the covenant before the Crown gave the defendant
notice ; as to the nonpayment of rent, they must have been
acquainted, and they must also have known, if there Lad
been any breach respecting husbanding the farm, because
the Crown had previously sent persons to value the timber
on it. He thought, therefore, there was ample ground
for setting aside the verdict.
The Cotta? granted a rule Nisi.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

HAYNES V. FOSTER.

This action was tried before Mr. Baron Gurney, and
a special Jury at:the London sittings after last Term, when
a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
'f he action was one of Troyer, for the recovery of cer-
tain Bills of Exchange, and was one of the many which
have arisen out of the bankruptcy of Messrs. Wood and Poole,
bill brokers in the city. The facts have frequently been be-
fore the public lately in other cases. Shortly they were as fol
lows :—On the 17th of November, 1831, the plaintiffs
gave bills into the hands of Wood and Poole for discount,
to the amount of 1,7001., at the same time receiving an
advance to the amount of 200/. Wood and Poole bad
tong been in the habit of raising money from the de-
fendants by pledging a number of bills. On the 20th of
November, they, being short of money, took seventy bills
to the defendants, amounting to about 6,0001., upon which
they obtained an advance of 5,500/. This transaction
took place on a Saturday afternoon, and Wood and Poole,
not having had time to take an account of the bills on that
day, on the Monday morning went to the counting-house
of the defendants, and got the bills away fur that pur.
pose. The bills were seen in the possession of Wood and
Poole on that Monday, which gave rise to the question
(which was the principal one in the case), whether the
bills were actually and bona fide given into the possession
of the defendant, on the Saturday, or not till the Monday,
for the purpose of covering a large debt for former ad-
vances, Wood and Poole having stopped payment on the
Tuesday.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE now moved for a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the
Learned Baron, and the verdict being against the weighs
of evidence. The Learned Serjeant contended that the
Learned Baron had left the question to the Jury in too
general a manner, and that the evidence for the define,
was unimpeachable, and stronger than that produced for
the plaintiffs.—Rule granted.

FOSTER AND ANOTHER V, PEARSON AND ANOTHER.
This was another action arising out of the same trans-
actions as the last. 'This was also tried at the late Lon-
don Sittings, and the only case out of three or four in
which a verdict was found for the present plaintiff+, who
in all the other actions were defendants.

Mr. Wutlasts moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not be set aside, on the ground of its
being against evidence. lie characterised the lending of
the bills on the Monday as a fraud, intended to support the
falling credit of Wood and Poole—for parties who had
sent in bills for discount, calling on the Monday, seeing
those bills there, would leave their bills, thinking that as
Wood and Poole had so many to go into the market
with, they must be in good credit. He also now
would argue this case as a lawyer, and would throw aside
from the case all the usage of the city of London in the
bill-broking business, which could not overturn the law
of the land. The business of a broker was, if he could
not get a bill di:•counted, to give it back to the owner, and
not to pledge it, and u•e it as if it was his own.

. -
Lord LYNDHURST said Mr. Williams might leave that
part of the case, as it would receive the attention of the
Court. Was the evidence in this case the same as in
the other ?

Mr. Wrwasis said it was, precisely.
The COURT—Then you must take a rule.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.:

EX•VARTE WILKINS IN RE WILKINS.

This was a petition to supersede a commis,ion issued
against the bankrupt in 1830, under the following circum-
stances :—The bankrupt, being under arrest, employed an
attorney of Warwick, named Tibbetts, to draw up a deed
of assignment of his effects, for the benefit of his creditors.
This was on the 24th of March, 1830, and the deed was
executed at 7 o'clock in the evening of that day. Tibbetts
immediately sent up to town, and had a docket struck
against him the next day, and the commission issued ; the
execution of the deed of assignment, to which Mr. Tibbetts
was himself a party, being made the act of h snkruptcy.
The only defence set up against the prayer of the petition
was, that the bankrupt bad for two years acquiesced in
the commission.

The COURT, however, superseded the commission, on
the ground of its hiving been obtained by a fraudulent
abuse of the power of the Great Seal.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE—cfms DAY,