The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-10 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the MATTER of the ROLLS was occupied
the whole morning with t+-.e further arguments in the
p irt-heard case of Hunter v. Atkins, which has already
occupied the Court several days. We shall give the de-
tails at the conclusion of the case.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

LOMAX V. JADIS.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001.,
drawn by the defendant on Lord Foley.
Mr. SHER stated the case. He said the plaintiff was
a gentleman of considerable property, who, having some
money idle, thought it would be usefully employed in dis
counting hills. Accordingly, he entered into some tran-
sactions of that kind with a person named Sutton, from
whom he received the bill in question. He would prove.
the acceptance of the defendant, that he had it for a valu
able consideration ; and though he had taken it after it
was due, it would also be proved that the then holder had
a right to recover upon it.
Mr. Latham was called, and proved the bill to have
been drawn and endorsed by the defendant, who was a
paymaster of Exchequer bills like himself.
H. E. Massey presented the hill at Drunoniond's ; the
answer was, that it was not provided for.
Mr. Sutton was then called.—He said he got the bill in
question from a Mr. Gompertz, to whom he gave 940/.
in cash and a horse for it ; this was on the 10th of Nov.
He presented the bill, but it was not paid ; about two
months after it was due he gave it to the plaintiff, to whom
at the time he owed upwards of 3,000/.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILLIAMS-Was of no pro-
fession or business since 1314 or 1816, when be was
Secretary at the Opera House.
Mr. WiLLlAms—Pray, Sir, will you allow me to ask
you how you maintain yourself?
The witness was extremely indignant at this question,
and appealed to his Lordship whether he was bound to
answer such an impertinent question?
His LORDSHIP was of opinion that it might be material.

The witness, then, with a face which was expressive
of the greatest contempt, looked at Mr Williams, and said
he lived upon his means, his business, and other ways.
Mr. WILLIAMS—Now, Sir, without at all meaning to
offend you, I would ask, do you know llertford House
in Piccadilly ?—I do.
Mr WlLLrats--Is it a gambling-house, and are not you
proprietor of it ? Witness—l do not know what you
mean by a gambling-house; it is a club-house, and I am
a member, but not proprietor, nor do I know who is. He
had had dealings Ns ith Gompertz to the amount of 6001.,
but did not know either what he did or where he lived. At
the time he gave this bill to Lomax he owed him 3000/. and
upwards, entirely for money borrowed. He did not knon
any person named Hutchinson or Bevan ; he resided in
Hertfordshire, and had a house in Curzon-street, also
lodgings in Oxendon-street, which might be a sporting
neighbeurhood ; perhaps Mr. Williams might sport there
sometimes, but he (the witness) sported elsewhere.

Mr. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, said, that both Mr.
Jadis and Lord Foley had been swindled out of this bill by
some of those men who made it their trade to advertise
money to lend.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff damages
1,0001. with interest from the sth May.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

GIBSON V. WINTER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance upon the
cargo of the Courier, which was lost on her voyage from
Rio de Janeiro. The policy was for 4,0001., but the
action was only for 1,5241. _ _ _

Mr. HoLT and Mr. RICHARDS conducted the case for
the plaintiff, and Sir JAMES SCARLZTT and Mr. CAMI,
BELL, that for the defendants.
From the evidence tendered on behalf of the plaintiff, it
appeared that the plaintiff, who was a partner in the firm
of Poindexter and Co., was an agent or broker in London
for M. Le Quesne, a merchant and ship owner of Jersey,
and the defendants were two of the directors of the
Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company. In
March 1829, the plaintiff, as the broker for M. Le
Quesne (who was stated to be the real plaintiff),
insured with the defendants the cargo of the ship
Courier, from Rio de Janeiro to England, by directions
of Mr. Le Quesne, for a sum of 4,0001. On her voyage
she was wrecked, and upon a settlement of the loss, the
damage was estimated at 3,0001. which was settled by the
defendants and the plaintiff in this way—the plaintiff for
former insurances upon other vessels, was indebted to the
defendants in two sums of 6751. ss. 3d. and 8491 3s. 9d.
Those were deducted, and the defendants paid to the plain-
tiff the balance of 1,4751. in cash, for the whole of which
settlement the plaintiff gave his receipt. Shortly after-
wards it was announced that the plaintiff's house had
stopped payment, and it was alleged that then Mr. Le
Quesne, for the first time, knew of the way i❑ which the
loss had been settled.

Mr. HOLT contended that the defendants, knowing
Mr. Gibson was but a broker for Mr. Le Quesne, had no
right to pay themselves a private debt due by the plaintiff
to them, out of the money due to the principal.

Sir J. SCARLET-r, fur the defendant, submitted to the
jury, that as the plaintiff in the cause had settled with the
defendants, and had given them his receipt for the whole
demand—moreover, as he would show by Mr. Le Quesne's
letters, that that gentleman had been credited by the plain-
tiff with the full amount of 3,0001. and bad actually
drawn upon the plaintiff for a part of it, the action was
not maintainable.

Mr. Poindester having been called to prove the state-
ment of the learned Counsel,
His LORDSHIP bummed up, and, under his directions,
the jury found a verdict for the defendants.

ROBERTS V. PALMER.

In this case, which was not finished yesterday when we
went to press, and which was an action brought to recover
a sum of money (4,9001.) had and received by the defend-
ants to the use of the plaintiff, the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on a spe-
cial case.

OLD BAILEY.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
WHOLKSALZ SHEEP sTKALING.

Bernard M'Namce, aged thirty-three, stood indicted
for stealing a flock of sheep, 118 in number, the property
of Benjamin Sowerby, a farmer residing in Lincolnshire.
The prosecutor resided at Massingham, in Licoln-
shire, and occupied a farm of 600 acres. The
prisoner was employed by him upon his farm as
a drover, and on the 3d April last be intrusted
him with 169 sheep, for the purpose of disposing of
them at Grantham cattle-fair. In a few days after he
saw the prisoner at Grandam, and ascertained that five
of the sheep had died, and that he had sold others, which
had reduced the drove to one hundred and eighteen, which
number he desired the prisoner to proceed with to
Smithfield, and to hand them over to a regular salesman
to dispose of. Witness and the prisoner were to have
met at the Spread Eagle, Gracechurch-street, on the 15th
of April, but the latter never made his appearance. Wit-
ness went to the Red Bull, at Islington, where he met a per-
son named Shelton, and from what passed he was induced
to go to Smithfield on the following morning, when he
discovered the sheep penned up. They had been sold by
the prisoner, who had put the money into his own pocket
and absconded.

Samuel Bligh apprehended the prisoner on board a ves-
sel about to sail to America.

The prisoner made a very lame defence, and the case
was proceeding when our reporter left.
Thomas Reilly, whose trial for the murder of his wife
was not over yesterday when our reporter left, was found
Guilty and sentenced to be hanged to-morrow morning.

The Liverpool Papers complain that house
and street robberies are more numerous than ever were
known there at this season of the year.
THE APPROACHING GENERAL ELECTION.
—We beg again to caution our readers who are qualified to
vote in any borough under the Reform Bill, that their
poor-rates and assessed taxes due before the 6th of April
must be paid on or before the 20th of July, or they
will not be mister/id at vote”.