The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-22 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

The Lord Chief Baron, Baren Bramwell, and Baron
Channel', took their seats at ten o'clock.

BEST V. HUGHES.

'I he Lord Chief Baron said, that in this case, one of
slander, Mr. Seymour, Q.C., obtained a rule nisi for a new
trial on the last day of term. The action was brought for
the use of certain words—thief being one of them—and the
defendant said that he did not use the words, although he
did use words something like them of a different import.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and Mr. Sey-
mour applied for a new trial on the ground that some col-
lateral matter had been introduced, arising out of a con-
versation with the attorney's el erk. lle (the Lord Chief
Baron) considered that no special damage had been done to
the plaintiff, the remark having been made only in the
presence of his wife and shopman. It was impossible to
lay down any general rule in such cases, but in this case
he thought there should not be a new trial.

The other Judges concurred, and the rule was refused.

THE REV. MR. HATCH'S CASE.

This morning the Rev. Henry John Hatch, who on the
sittings after last tarm obtained a verdict against Messi-s.
Lewis and Lewis, his attorneys, for negligence in conduct-
ing his case (when he was indicted at the Central Criminal
Court), attended the Court in company with Mr. Holt, his
solicitor, and other gentlemen, and had a lengthened con-
sultation with Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., the rev.
gentleman's counsel. It is the intention of Mr. Hatch
through Mr. Chambers to move the Court for a new trial
on the ground that, although the verdict was in his favour,
it ought to have been accompanied with substantial da-
mages when the charge of negligence was proved to the
satisfaction of the jury. The 40s. awarded by the jury does
not entitle the rev. gentleman to costs unless upon a certi-
ficate from the Lord Chief Baron who tried the case. It is
understood that the application for the new trial will be
made to-morrow morning.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GURNEY V. GURNEY AND TAYLOR.

The Solicitor-General this morning applied to the court
to make the rule nisi, which had been granted in this suit,
absolute, as the period within which opposition was to have
been entered—viz,, three months—had expired.
The learned Judge accordingly made the rule for disso-
lution of marriage in this case absolute.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT-AUSTEN Y. MARTEN.

This was an amicable suit to ascertain whether the de-
fendant had given a good title, or could give a better title
to the plaintiff, to the property purchased by him from the
defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant could
give him a better title to the property than the title offered.
The defendant answered that he had given to the plaintiff
the best title that he could give.
His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, was of opinion that as the Lords Justices had refused
to appoint new trustees to carry out the purposes of the
trust, and as the legal and equitable estate merged, and
was vested in the defendant, the title ofered by him to the
plaintiff was a good and valid title to the property, and de-
clared accordingly without costs. Hit Honour dismissed
the plaintiff's bill simpliciter.