The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-06 00:00:00

LAW INIELLIGENCE—(TIais Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Channell, and Wilde.)
HATCH. V. LEWIS.

In this case it will be remembered Mr. Chambers obtained
a rule last term for a new trial on the ground of insuffi
ciency of damages—the jury only giving Mr. Hatch 40s.
damages when he sued Messrs. Lewis, the .attornies, of
Ely-place, for damages for neglect at his trial.
Mr. Sergeant Shee was heard against the rule on Mon-
day, and Mr. Garth this morning concluded the arguments
in support of it.

The court was unanimously of opinion that the rule ought
to be discharge.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
nicfrAnns v. NIXON.
This was an action for the recovery of a bill of exchange.
The point in dispute appeared to be whether the bill had
been offered to be paid before a writ was issued thereon.
The Judge gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
one farthing.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
THE CITY SOLICITOR AND THE ACTIONS AGAINST
SIR H. MUOGIERIDGE.

At the sitting of this court this morning Charles Pear-
son, Esq., the City solicitor, begged permission to address
the court upon a subject which had annoyed him consider-
ably. Some proceedings had taken place in this court,
occupying the attention of a large number of persons ; and
he (Mr. Pearson) was surprised to find that the plaintiff,
Charles Pearson,.was set forth to the public as the nephew
of the City solicitor, bringing an action against Alderman
Sir Henry Muggeridge, and thus, as it were, introducing
the City solicitor upon the scene, making him a party to an
action against his superiors. As to the plaintiff being the
nephew to the City solicitor, he (Mr. Pearson) had no inten-
tion of disclaiming the relationship ; but he had yet to learn
that it was customary to go through the pedigree of a
plaintiff. Tho young man was thirty years of age, and
had filled many situations and was really a most respectable
young man, but he (Mr. Pearson) had no control over him.
Now he (Mr. Pearson) wished it to be distinctly understood
that ho had no knowledge of the proceedings involving the
name of the Lord Mayor and Sir Henry Muggeridge, Mr.
Pearson's superior officers, and, added the learned gentle-
man, "If I had known of any such proceeding I should
certainly have set my face against it. In conclusion,
while thanking you for the opportunity of making these
few observations, I may say that I regret my name has
been introduced at all, as I would not have lent myself to
such an action."

His Honour was of opinion that the character of the
learned gentleman stood too high for a statement of fact in
the public press to injure him.
[lt was stated upon oath by the plaintiff that he was the
nephew of the City Solicitor, so the blame does not rest
upon the reporter.]

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—(This Day.)

(Before the Assistant Judge.)
CUTTING AND WOUNDINGF.
Daniel Gilmore, a sailor, was indicted for cutting and
wounding Mary Shay, with intent to do grievous bodily
harm.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mary Ann Shay said, on the 25th of October, she was in
Rateliff Highway, where she saw the prisoner struggiing
with a girl: She went up, when ho turned round upon her
(witness) and attacked her with a knife. He inflicted some
very severe wounds on her hand, when the police came up,
and he was taken into custody. He was quite sober.
Mary Lacy said she was, with the prisoner on the night
in question. She had a quarrel with him, when she
saw him take a knife from behind him, and then he began
striking out right and left. She saw the prisoner inflict
several wounds on the prosecutrix.
Mr. Ross, a surgeon, described the nature of the wounds.

George Parsons, a policeman, said he saw the prisoner
prisoner, after he had stabbed the woman. He picked up
the knife in the road, and then he asked the prisoner if ho
had stabbed the woman. He replied yes, and that he had
done it to defend himself. He did not see any quarrelling.
The prisoner said he was attacked by a number of drunken
men and women, and he drew the knife to defend himself,
nothing more. He certainly drew the knife, and had he
not done so, he should have been half-killed. He did not
know whether it was man or woman he cut.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended
him to mercy.
The assistant judge sentenced him to three months'
imprisonment, at the same time informing him that had
the jury not recommended him to mercy, ho would have
passed a very severe sentence upon him, as the use of the
knife was very un-English, and it was to be regretted that
sailors were allowed to carry it in the manner they did.