The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-17 00:00:00

ICENRICK V. HORDER,

Mr. Edwin James, Q. 0., moved for a rule calling
upon the defendant to show cause why the verdict which
had been given when the case was first tried should not
be set aside and a new trial granted. It was an action
for a criminal information in which the plaintiff' alleged
that defendant had debauched and had hap criminal con-
versation with his wife, to which a plea ocnot guilty bad
been entered. On the hearing of the case, the whole
question turned upon, whether or not the plaintiff wog
bound to prove his marriage, which had not been previ-
ously traversed. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for 20/., but as the decision was not considered
satisfactory by the plaintiff, the present application was
made.
Rule granted,

Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge

GLANNILLE V. KETMER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a coffee-
house keeper, in White Lion-street, Islington, against
the defendant, the landlord of the Norfolk Arms
public-house, at which a loan society was held. It ap-
peared ,that the plaintiff being in want of - some
money, applied to the loan-office, and after
some negotiation, a loan of sixty pounds was
granted to him, he giving a bill of sale to the society as
security. The plaintiff engaged to repay the loan by
instalments of 101. every three months. Oa granting
the loan the plaintiff said it was clearly understood that
he should have eighteen months to repay the money,
and it was on that understanding that he signed the bill
of sale. The first 101. became due in October, but on
the money not being forthcoming his goods were seized
and sold by public auction. The whole case turned upon
the construction of the deed under which the goods were
taken.

A verdict was given for the plaintiff, damages GO/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)

EELLIIOUSE V. THE CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER.

The arguments of Sir F. Kelly, on the part of the
plaintiff, occupied the court the whole of the morning.
It was an action against the Corporation of Manches.
ter by the plaintiff, a wool merchant, who, in conse-
quence of the construction of a certain bridge, had had
his premises inundated with water, whereby a great
quantity of property had been spoiled.

EXCHEQUER COURT,
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
DALTON V. BACHELOR.

Mr. Whateley moved for a new trialn this case, which
was an action for tho recovery of compensation for in-
juries the plaintiff hal received in consequence, as he
alleged, of the negligence of the servants of the defen-
dant, the owner of a timber-yard. It appeared that a
man named James, a carman was hired to convey
some timber from a certain dock, and as the plaintiff was
crossing the road, the cart was moved and be received
an injury on the leg.

It was contended that James, not being a servant of
Batchelor, but merely a perion who had a contract to
perform a certain duty, that Batchelor was not liable for

his acts.

The learned gentleman bad not concluded his argu-
ments when our report left.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
THE ROTAL BIIITISII BANK.-DIVIDEND MEETINti.

To-day was appointed for.the anxiously expected divi.
dend meeting, and a great number of persons who had
not proved on the previous occasions were generally
admitted without opposition. -
Mr. Roxburgh' appeared on behalf of a gentleman
named Ramsay, who had proved for 7001. on a deposit
account, and 691. 2s. on a current drawing account.
The assignees, however, had for some reason refused to
pay the first dividend, and he now applied to his
Honour for an order directing them to do so.

Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, said that they had
not had any notice of the intention to apply.
Mr. Roxburgh said the assignees were fully aware of
the facts, and, having allowed the debt to be proved, the
assignees were bound to pay the dividend.
Mr. Linklater said that the ground of refusal was that
Hr. Ramsay was the holder of 10 new shares, and a call
had been made by the directors of 501. per share, for
which he was liable; if there was more than that due to
him be could prove for the difference.

Mr. Roxburgh said that it had not been decided that
be was liable, but all he (Ur. Roxburgh) asked now was
that a note should be taken and put on the proceeding,
so that an appeal might be had, and that was certain,
which ever way the decision was, in order to set the
question at rest.

The case was adjourned.
Mr. Roxburgh then applied on behalf of a Mr.
Fronde, to prove for 2701. on the drawer's account, and
5001. paid for shares, which, he contended, he bad been
induced to take through false representations.
His Honour intimated that, assuming there had been
fraud, be could not decide the question finally, and it
would be better to adjourn till a future day and take the
evidence, so that either party might appeal.
The case was proceeding and proofs taken. The list
will nct be made np,to-day, but there is little doubt but
that ttle dividend will be 2s. 6d. in the pound.

CITY SHERIFF COURT.
(Before Mr. Prenderga^,t, Q.C.)
PALMER V. PULLIN.- EJECTMENT.

This was an action in Ejectment. The plaintiff is a
builder in Great S. Bartholomew Close, and the de-
fendant was the tenant of a house in Markwell-street,
btiniging to the plaintiff.

Mr. Buchanan, Basinghall•street, appeared for the
plaintiff to prove the tenancy, but an objection was taken
that oral testimony could not be received, as there was
a written agreement existing. Mr. Buchanan said he
would put in a written paper, but did not tender it as
evidence, but the defendant might make it so if he
thought proper.

Defendant's attorney o`jected that it was not stamped.
His Honour read the document, and said that it was
clearly an agreement requiring a sta4p.
Mr. Buchanan contended on the authority of a case p.
184 Woodfall, that no new tenancy had been created,
and relied upon the original verbal contract, and put in
the receipts.

His Honour said that he considered that it was a new
contract, and that the agreement must be read.
Mr. Osgood, the chief clerk, said that as the officer
of the Court he was bound to take an objection to re•
ceiving the document, unless the amount of the duty
and a penalty of 101. was pa'd into Court.

His Honour regretted that the law was so stringent
in such a case, for persons might easily put something
into writing which might prove to be an agreement re-
quiring a stamp.

Mr: Buchanan at first said that he would pay the
penalty, but ultimately elected to be no neuited.

MILITARY TRIAL.-A soldier, named Scipion, of the
95th regiment, was on Wednesday tried by the Military
Tribunal on the capital charge of striking superiors.
On the 12th January last, he returned to his bar-
racks drunk, and as was his custom when intoxicated
he began abusing and striking his comrades. One of
them went to complain to the sergeant, and before
he returned Scipion struck another, named Vincent,
who expressed his annoyance at being so treated ;
Scipion struck him a second time, on which Vin-
cent became much irritated, and declared that if he
struck him again he should repent it ; the man, how-
ever, did strike again, and Vincent seizing a form felled
him to the ground with it by a violent blow' on the head.
S:ipion, with blood streaming from his wounds, went as
soon as be could to the sergeant to complain, but found
that Vincent had preceded bins in doing so. After hear-
ing both parties, the sergeant declared that Scipion was
originally in the wrong, and accordingly ordered him,
after getting his wounds dressed, to go to the salle de
police ; but instead of obeying, the man struck a corpo-
ral who advanced to take him to the infirmary, and he
afterwards struck the sergeant. He was immediately
seized and locked up. Before the court, the prisoner, who
presented himself with his bead shaved, and with large
scars on his scull, declared that he. was completely b-
wildered by the blows which be had received, and was
not aware that he had struck the corporal and sergeant.
The tribunal condemned him to death,