The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-29 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 27.
WILKINSON U. EARL LICHFIELD.
This was an action brought by Mr. Peter Richard
Wilkinson, of Queen-street, Cheapside, stationer, to re-
cover the sum of 1,200/., the amount of a promissory
note, dated the 21st of September, 1811, payable three
months after date, bearing the name of the Noble Earl
as the maker and indorser, but both signatures were de-
nied in his Lordship's pleas. The cause was tried in
London on Wednesday last, before Mr. Justice Maule,
when a verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING now moved for a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted, on the ground that the verdict was against
the weight of evidence. The Learned Sergeant, in re-
capitulating the evidence, stated that although the tea-
tiniony principally relied upon for the plaintiff was that
of the cashier of Stephenson and Salt, formerly his
Lordship's bankers, who swore positively that he believed
the signatures were in Lord Lichfield's handwriting, yet,
on the other side, there was Colonel Anson, defendant's
brother, who must well know Lord Lichfield's
writing; hut more particularly Mr. Blots, inspector of
franks, and other witnesses engaged in the General Post-
°lice while the noble Earl was Postmaster-General; all
these were of opinion that the handwriting was not that
of his Lordship, and those in the Post-office, who must
have seen his Lordship's signature many times a day,
must better know the handwriting than the banker's
clerk. The Learned Judge in summing up drew
the attention of the jury to the latter circumstance.
The note bore the indorsement of " Margaret Edwards,"
of which probably their Lordships would not
take judicial notice ; but she was very well known
out of Court. No reason was assigned why the
note had not been presented before, nor was it
stated how the note came into plaintiff's pessesdon ;
and the jury, after being absent; an hour, came
into Court, asking if the-bill::,11ad been noted and
payment demanded, and, thet4,.lvere absent another
hour before returning their y,elfitat.or the plaintiff.
The Learned Judge, in *pm( up,. intimated that
though plaintiff was not legitllylinpid;* it would have
been better to have shown'thgOrisideration, as well as
how he became possessed of the,note ; sind he (Mr. Ser-
ee9nt Manning) believed Mr. Jiistice Maule was dissa-
tisfied with the verdict.

The CoURT decided on consulting Mr. Justice Maule
before granting the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 27.
EARL OF CARNIRVON V. VILLEROIS.
In this case, in which a motion for a new trial had
been made sometime back by Sir T. Wilde, the Court
gate judgment. The question was as to the party in
whom rested tho right of a warren situated in the manor
of Highclerc and 13urghcler, in the county of South-
ampton.
The COURT was of opinion that the rule for a new
trial must be granted.
Some other business of no importance was disposed
of, and their Lordships rose at two o'clock, to meet the
other Judges in the ExcheqUer Chamber.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, April 27.
The Judges, after two o'clock, sat in this Court, when
they heard the arguments in the case of

TEE QUEEN V. BANNIN.
It appeared that the prisoner had bean convicted
at the late assizes of having forged a die for
making base or counterfeit coins. It was sub-
mitted that as he had only sent to a die-sinker,
who was named Carter, at Birmingham, to have
a die made for him, and which Carter did make for him
under the sanction of the Mint, that he ought not to
have been indicted on the charge of which he was
found guilty—namely, that of forging a die. It appeared
he had never sent fur the die which Carter had made for
him, and yet he was taken into custody, tried, and con-
victed of the offence mentioned. It was contended that
the prisoner was wrongly indicted, and that the charge
to which he was amenable—namely, that of inciting an-
other to make the die, was only a:misdemeanour, whereas