The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco.—Bdure Justices Cresswell and
Williams.)
MOORE V. WEBB.-POLLUTING A WATERCOURSE.

The plaintiff in this case bas a ferns in Suffolk, through
which flows a stream which he had been in ate habit of
using for Isis cattle upon the farm. The defendant was
a tancer, and had premises some distance up the stream.
lie was in the habit of using the water of the stream in
his business and returning it hack again into the stream,
and he justified his right to use the stream for the pur-
poses of his business. To this plea there was a new
assignment by the plaintiff, that the defendant bad used
the stream to an extent beyond which his right ex-
tended. The case was, tried before Mr. Justice Cole.
ridge, who directed a verdict for the defendant; but
subsequently a rule was obtained for a new trial, upon
the grounds that,his lordship was wrong in holding that
the defendant's plea setting up bis right to use the
stream was proved, and that there was no evidence of
the plaintiff's new assignment. To-day cause was shown
against the rule being made absolute.
Mr. Serjeant Byles, Mr. O'Malley, and Mr. Couch
appeared to show cause ; and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Pren-
dergast, Mr. Serjeant We►ls, and Mr. Honyman to
support the rule.
The case occupied their lordships the whole day.
The Court ultimately directed the rule for a new trial
to be made absolute.
Rute absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins ;it Guildhail.—Before Mr. Baron
Bramwell and C ,mmon Juries.)
LARD V. THE GENERAL APOTHECARIES COMPANY.—
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
Mr. Doyle was counsel hr the plaintiff, and Mr.
Overend conducted the defence.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Dr.
Lard, against the defendants, the General Apothecaries
Company (which bad been established for the purpose
of supplying the public with pure drugs), for as/preach of
contract. The defendants denied having made the con-
tract as alleged. It appeared that in September last
the defendants announced that they were ab .ut to pub-
lish 18,000 copies of a circular, which they called ;men,
tion to as offering important advantages to advertisers
who insert their advertisements therein. The plaintiff
at this time being about to publish a work, of .red
the defendants 5/. for inserting his advertisement, upon
which they replied by letter, requesting him to forward
his advertisement as , soon as convenient.. This he
accordingly did, but notwithstanding the arrangement
the plaintiff's advertisement did not appear,
r w
but
wok
circular contained an advertisement aboutasii
la
c The
which had been published by another person.
plaintiff, in consequence of this alleged breach of n-
cotifonth. e defendants contended
con-
tract, amc tr,. hadov e
r bernodn, g
on brought
behalf this
tethat there was no case to go to the jury,
fore, the plaintiff must be nonsuited., that, there-
There was no
breach of Contract, as no contract existed.
in Tcihrecupllaarinstoifff
hade d i d
had offered to insect his advertisement
stehneddietfetnodatnhetsm,
,anwd
htiteh e
y v n merely
ynorteqaumesotuednt himto
an
acceptance, as it was not coinp ulsory on a newspaper or
other advertising medium to insert an adverti e
which might be prejudicial to their interests, particularly
when no money had passed bet weep the parties.
Mr. Baron.bramwell was of opinion that the objection
was good, as there had evidently been no contract be-
tween the parties. The plaintiff must either be nonsuited
or the verdict must pass for the defendants.
The verdict was then entered fur the defendants. , I

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.
SCOTT V. LANGFIELD, ALIAS MONTEFIORE. THE LATE
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF FoRGERT AT THE MANSION
HOUSE.
This case, which uas attracted a good deal of " public
attention" came before Mr. Justice Crompton, on an ap
plication on the part of the defendant for his discharge
from Whitecross-street Prison. It will be recollected
that Mr. Justice Coleridge ordered the di-charge at the
suit of a gentleman named Hewitt, who arrested the
defendant as he was about leaving the Mansion-liuse,
where he was charged with forgery on the Cape of
Good Hope Bank. After the arrest on a judge's order five
detainers were lodged against him, and as many :urn-
monpes were made returnable to-day by adj,iurnment, in
all of which the question was raised whether the defend-
ant intended to abecond.
Mr. Eedie appeared as counsel to oppose the applica-
tion, and read an affi 'avit from Mr. Roy, the En.;lnitor
for the Loudon and Westminster Bank, setting forth the
arrest, by Scott, the detective, at Grivesend, and the
several examinations before the Lur,l Mayor. lie
alleged that the pretence of an intended marriage was
not to be credited, and that the defendant would leave
the country. He expected some further information

from the Cape of Good Hope, when the defendant would
be charged again with the offences.
Mr. Lewis (Lewis and Lewis) referred to the defer&
ant's affidavit, that he came to England to marry
a lady, and intended to reside in London within
the jurisdiction of the cr‘urt, He submitted
that the very reason alleged on the other side
that the defendant had committed offences in parts
abroad, would induce him to reside in the country. It
would appear from the affidavits that the defendant left
the Cape voluntarily, and was induced to leave from sr
communication made by the Attorney-General of the
colony._

Eadie cited a case in which it was held that a
mere denial that a man did not intend to abscond was
not sufficient. The alleged pretended marriage was a
mete pretence, and too absurd to be believed.
Mr. Lewis said it wag no pretence, and be could prove
it, but, of course, did not wish to be a partisan in the
matter.

Mr. Justice Crompton was of opinion that the appli-
cat ,n for discharge should be granted. He should have
wished to have detained the defendant, but it would
appear that this cJuntry was the best place in which to
take up his domicile if the allegations were true. His
lordship ordered the defendant, to be discharged.
An application was then made to Mr. Justice Wiliest
in the case on a detainer by a creditor named Rodergiu
and he matter was strong y opposed, and Mr. Roy's
affidavit again read. On the part of the defendant it
was said that the bj -ct was to detain the defendant on
expected information. There was no pretence that any
offence had been committed in this country.
Mr. Justice Willes was inclined to refer the matter to
the Court, but after consulting with Mr. Justice Cromp-
ton ordered the discharge.

Subsequently a similar application was made to Mr.
Baron Bramwell, before whom three summonses were
made returnable. The case of a creditor named Keen and
another was gone into, and occupied the learned Baron
till nearly six o'clock. Mr. Eadie opposed, and Mr.
Lewis supported. Three learned judges had already
decided in favour of the defendant.
Mr. Baron Bramwell-considered the case of so much
importa❑ce that he should refer it to the Court. The
matter was accordingly referred, and the defendant re•
mained in custody.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)
IN THE MATTER OF LOUIS FLATOW.
This insolvent, who described himself as a Turkish
merchant and commission agent, was oppused, on his
Application to be discharged from prison, by Mr. Dowse
for Messrs. Brown and Deleggio, merchants at Constan•
tinople. Mr. Sargood supported. •
There was only one debt in the schedule, contracted
in September last, when the ins, lvent was a resident at
Constantinople. He obtained 1201. of pickles of the
opposing credijors, which he sold for 601., and 341. of
candles, which be sold for 291. The goods were ordered
before be obtained them, and the fall is the market
before they were delivered caused the loss. With the
money the insolvent paid some debts, and spent the
remainder in travelling. He came to England to eze
cute some orders, and on mentioning to the house in
London his intention to return to Constantinople, he
was arrested on a judge's order as about to leave the
country, on which he petitioned the Conrt.
Mr. Dowse required the names of the parties to whom
the articles were sold to be set forth in the schedule, as"
a telegraphic message would be Bent to Constantinople.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips ordered the production of
a Mr. Gans, on whom the insolvent had drawn a bill for
the debt due to the opposing creditors, which he did not
accept, on the nest occssion,.and directed the schedule
to be amended as to the sales of the goods.
The case was adjourned sine die.