The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-26 00:00:00

cretion of William Lamb, I think his name is, and James
Derham ; that is my opinion.
BLr. TINNEY—I am not quite sure, whether the fix-
tures according to your Lordship's principle would be
included in that mortgage, but that is a question we must
consider.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—You mean Mr. Russell's
mortgaße?
Mr. TINNEY--YES.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—That is a point to which I
hale,not adverted. If you have any doubt about it I
wiltat•tand to it.
41%,-TINNEY—If your Lordship pleases. If we show
the,rl,l,oool. are paid off; then we shall be the fast
inoitgegees.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Tae mortgage due to the
Lancaster Banking Company was a mortgage of the
leaseholds and fixtures by name. The fixtures of course
were not mentioned, from the nature of the transaction,
but wherever there is a mortgage of the leaseholds it
carries the fixtures. _ _ _

------
Mr. TlNNEY—Generally speaking it would, but there
may be specialties, if your Lordship will permit us to
mention it, if necessary.
Mr. BETHELL—We hat better leave it till next Wed-
nesday. We will prepare the minutes by Monday, if
your Lordship pleases, so that you may have is copy of
them.
Mr. TINNEY—We may be first mortgagees. We may
show the whole 11,0001. has been paid off. Ido nut
know who should prepare the minutes.
Mr. BETEELL—There are two or three plaintiffs.
Mr. TINNEY—We are the plaintiffs.
Mr. BETRELL—If you will take the onus of preparing
the minutes.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let Mr. Russell do it; he
has so much leisure.

Mr. BETHELL—Oh, yes, if you and Mr. Tinny will
take the charge of overlooking them afterwards.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HOWARD V. GOSSET.

The plaintiff is an attorney, and this was an action brought
against Sir W. Gossett, the Sergeant-at-Arms to the House
of Commons, for an alleged assault and false imprisonment,
connected with the celebrated Stockdale and Hansard affair;
and the case stood in the special paper for argument on
demurrer.

Mr. WADDINGTON now applied to the Court to postpone
the hearing of the argument until next session. The case
would require very great care in its preparation, as it in-
volved several serious questions relating to the privileges of
the House of Commons. He was with his Learned Friend
the Attorney-General, for the defendant, and if the case
were postponed until next term, he howl he might be
enabled to have his valuable assistance.

Mr. KELLY, who was on the opposite side, had no objection
to the postponement, if their Lordships would consent.
Mr. Justice PArrESON—As the other side does not object,
let the case stand fur argument in Trinity Term.—Apphca-
tion granted.
This being the Queen's birthday the Judges were in their
scarlet robes, and full-bottomed wigs ; and the Queen's Counsel
also appeared in full-bottomed wigs, silk gowns, and full-dress
Court suits, with lace ruffles. The Court altogether pre-
sented a very gay appearance. Lord Denman, who wore his
chain of office and appeared in his full costume as Lord Chief
Justice of England, left the Court at half-past one o'clock.
The Court was much crowded during the whole morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 25..
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day. The arguments
were of the usual technical character.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, April2s.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a

Common Jury.)
BONNIWELL V. DUCKWORTH.

This action was to recover damages for an alleged iheoal
distress on goods and fixtures belonging to the plaintiff.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Hill appeared for the plaintiff, Mr.
Jervis for the defendant.

• It appeared that on the 29th of January last, plaintiff con-
signed a- chaise-body, three tin cans, and some wheels and
axles, to the care of the landlord of the Boar's Head, in
Barnet, and, en the • next day, a number of chairs. He re-
sided at Whetstone, in a house which he held of the assignees
of Messrs. Chambers. Shortly after this, defendant, a
broker, at Barnet, called at the Boar's Head, and having
seen the goods of plaintiff, took them next day in distress.
A mahogany sign-board was also taken away forcibly,
bringing with it a few tiles. The defence was, that
as a year and three-quarters' rent, amounting to
14/. 14s. was due, the goods had been removed
to avoid the distress. It was further shown that
plaintiff had kept himself closely barricaded in his house
since the period of these events. All that the defendant had
done to the sign-board was measuring it at the Bull and
Butchers, where it was brought to him.
_ _

The jury awarded damage's of 151., but pronounced the re-
moval of the chairs to be clandestine, considering all the cir-
cumstances of the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 24.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice MAPLE.)
WILKINSON V. LORD LICHFIELD.
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover a sum of
1,2001.,_ the amount of the defendant's promissory note, under
the following, circumstances :—The note in question came to
the house of the plaintiff, through a lady of the name of
Edina% but it did nut appear what consideration he gave.
for .it.
For the plaintiff, Mr. Leman, of the house of Leman and
trland, who had been his Lordship's solicitors, as well as a
Mr. Lewis and his clerk, deposed to the genuinenen of his,
Loidship's signature, and from the opportunities which they
11'10, they Lad no doubt of it.
For the defendant, Colonel Anson, the brother of his Lard.
ship, was called, who most positively stated- that the signa-
ture to the note, as well as the endorsements, were forgeries.
Th y had been schoolfellows together, and he could not be
mistaken in the genuineness of his brother's signature. His
evidence was corroborated by his Lordship's private secretary,
as well as the inspector of franks at the General Post-office,
while his. Lordship' was Postmaster-General, and some other
.; officials, who all pronounced the signature and endorsement
to-be forgeries; there could be no denial of their capability
'of judging, ts they were in the daily habit of seeing his
• sielietnre to officialdocuments.
His LonnsuiP summed up the evidence at great length,
and told the jury that they had a very nice distinction to
draw between the balance of evidence. His Lordship ob-
_ served that it: would have been more satisfactory it the plain-.
tiff had given some explanation how he became possessed of
the note ; however, on the witnesses which he produced no
imputation could be cast upon their. credibility and their ca-
pability of forming-an opinion, still on the part of the defend-
ant, the witnesses called were of equal respectability, and.
• above all suspicion ; therefore it would be for them to judge
• of the.respective value of the evidence on both sides.
The jury, after two hours' deliberation, found a verdict for
• •
the plaintitifor the amount of the note, with interest,
APRIL 25.
nßooßes v. HODGSON.
Sir T. WILDE in this case moved on behalf of the ale
'sigi:ees of the defendant for a rule to 'show cause Why the
consent, signed by the defendant to a judge's order, should
• not set aside, together with the judge's order founded on
. that consent; and also why the writ of ft. fa. should not be
set aside. The ground on which he moved was, that the
. consent was fraudulently obtained, and was a fraud under
the Act of Parliament of the Ist and 2d 'Vic. chap. 110, sec.
9. The defendant was a linen-draper, and the plaintiff was
a wholesale trader in London. The traveller of the latter
having gone to the defendant he looked over the books, and
told the defendant he did not think he could carry on his
busilless, and asked for security on behalf of the plaintiffs.
He produced a paper which was the consent in question.
The defendant signed it on the understanding that it was not
to be enforced, unless the other creditors of the defendant
pressed upon him. - Next day, however, a sheriff's officer
entered, and took possession of the whole of the defendant's
property. He (Str T. Wilde) now applied, on behalf of the
assignees of the bankrupt, to have the consent set aside.
Motion granted.
• The Court will hear new trial motions to-morrow. •

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

Gore,' the contractor for, the cleansing of the streets
of the City of London, appeared upon a summons
issued by the Lord Mayor, upon his Lordship's own evi-
dence, to answer for having neglected to remove an im-
mense mass of filth from Puddle-dock.
The Lynn MAYOR had, in passing through Earl-
street, Blackfriars,. been assailed by a "compound of
villainous smells," which he considered to be calculated
to cause a pestilence amongst the inhabitants _of the
. neighbourhood, and, having ascertained that the nun.
once . proceeded from Puddle dock, directed Inspector
odhunter, of the City police force, to examine the
. - and to report the result of his observations, and
• s' deliver a summons to the contractor, against
.om . ,
w so many complaints have been made in the City
. . eglect of the tenor of his contract with the COM-
i, ...- spners of Sewers.
o e defendant, upon being called upon by the Lord
Mayor to account for his conduct in sufferisg the filth
wat)acuaelltiatei said that the laystall at puddle was
systall in which everybody who pleased might
W deposit.loadsiistandi of offensive matter, and that he had it, not-
The regularly swept every day.
'Leap Xrea:--The Act of Parliament directs
that all the, abonaiii ton with which the laystall abounds
should be removed ate
takes place.
. It is a falsehood to say
that seCh removal actif:. lam surprised that dis.
ease his.not sprung frini
that it he lei% continuance of the
nuisance, for I know
oslated for a great length
of time, and it is *Most direful
remain. But I shall see whether is
you to permit it to
by you with impunity.
the low is to be violated
. Inspector Todhunter said that be had gone to exit.
mine the laystall;and certainly nothing could be more
horrible. He saw a person on the
self Mr. Gore,• but he was not sure whether that
was the defendant. Iu answer to some-Ti person
individual alluded to declared that people resorted to
Puddle-dock for the benefit of their health, and received
all the advantages they expected from such a course.
The defendant- here declared that he was not the per-
• son who was addressed by the Inspector on the occasion,
as he happened to be at Romford at the time of the
officer's visit to the laystall. •
InspectorTodhunter said the man who represented
himself as the contractor most certainly resembled the
defendant very much, and appeared to be in authority at
. Puddle-dock. He used the argument in defence of the
system of acctiniurating the masses of filth in the lay-
. stall, that he was always sure to get an appetite by being.
. so frequently in the neighbourhood, and that he could
- aleroye eat a good beefsteak for his breakfast on the
. ePet--,-(Laughter.)
ra71,1.1,01D MAYOR--The defendant has acted in a
zr !sgEriceftil manner in • not abating the nuisance,
47`_,,°• is paid so-largely to remove. I will at once
w e directions on thesubject, cannot show
tha and ascertain whether we
peal that his the
law is stronger than he. I re- I
that.the inhabitants t is most disgraceful, and I expect
will ''
assisttue Incctively look after him, and
cemDelling him to do •
charge the summons, and • his duty. I shall dis-
charge proceed at once•by indictmentinstruct the City Solicitor to
The defendant was evidently against him.
terms of indignation used by teatred 1)Y the
strung
-'
thsi justice room id a state of alarm.
Lard Mayor, and left
'MARYLEBO:N.E.
su.sa?i Doherty, aged 20, was placed at the bar
charge of robbing her mistress, Miss Luxi on a
gspu,.a. 17,