The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-31 00:00:00

!p!wieh to be married to a young lady of property, but
being then in rather straitened circumstanceshe induced
ono Tempest, the present derendant. to accept two seco-
nlodation bills of exchange, one for 301. and the other
for 1002 Before these bills arrived at maturity Mr. Guy
Ras
as eaudralpirtai as an
receiving
anattorney, and last year Mr. Tempest
a writ, at the suit of Mr. Dod-
sen, the plaintiff in this action, his friend Mr. Guy's
;Tile being endorsed as the attorney for the plaintiff.
Air. Tempest represented these circumstances to his
liNal adviser, who told him that he could have no de-
fence against Mr. Dodson, the indorsee; and he there-
tln ore allowed judgment to pass against him by default.
September hat he was arrested on a capias ad satis-
'sciendum. and tame then repeated applications had been
made to Mr. Guy to disclose who Mr. Dodson was and
where he resided. This information, however,was never
Isle,phpleiehveda;bne,t recently Mr. Dodson had been found at
it
knows and that gentleman now declares that he
nothing tf the bills, nor did he ever give Mr.
b), any authority to sue Mr. Tempest upon them, and
nee the present application.
r_ u ?l'. Justice WIGUTMAN said he could only grant a
e to show cause why the judgment should not be set
aside, iu order that the defendant might be placed in a
situation to lead to the action ; the facts stated in the
affidavits onPthe application against Mr. Guy must be
fin after proceeding.
Rule nisi accordingly.
SWAIN V. COX.
Mr. PRENTICE applied for a rule to show cause why
the, writ of prohibition, issued in this case out of the
retty 13ag-offiee of the Court of Chancery, should net
nset aside. The action had been commenced in the
°llatY Court of Reading for a trespass, but at the hear-
-1; of the case the defendant took an objection to the
gatisliction of the Court, on the ground that the point
to dispute involved a question of title. No evidence,
"verer, was adduced to show this, and the Learned
Judge overruled' the objection, when the defendant said
e
would leave the matter in the hands of the Court.
Abe. Court decided against the defendant, and
ti)rderecl him to pay five pounds as damages ;
that When the money became due, it was discovei ed
h
the defendant bad caused a writ of prohibition to be
issued out of the Petty Bag-office of the Court of Chan-
cery, It had only been recently discovered that this
!ewer existed in the Chancery Court, and the consequence
wee that in every county court case where property was
Zboerned, the defendants were obtaining prohibitions
ih were issued, as a matter of course, out of the
th", Eng-office. There could, however, be no doubt
th,":tois power of granting prohibition was transferred
the County Court Act to the Queen's Bench, who
fotreised a discretion in granting these writs, and there-
t
'tiho prohibition in this case ought to be set aside.
le nisi.

41tCHES' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir H. J. FUST, Knt.)
ciAt
theacoanix V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
sitting of the Court this morning, after several
sus the ordinary description had been disposed of,
tee Registrar called the case on, and said this case
D° pd over from the last court day on the application of
all' Addams, who appeared for the Bishop of Exeter, to
further time for the return of the monition.
C 147,. ADDAMS rose, and said he was instructed on
,:`\Lf of the Bishop of Exeter (tbe defendant in this
tilt) to ask that the Court would grant further time for
log the return to the monition; and he therefore
erased the Court to allow it to stand over to the next
~"air (Monday, June 10). The Bishop of Exeter
niouei the Learned Doctor) had not the slightest
desire to slight the authority of the Court, or intended
;Ille least disrespect, in not complying with its order, but
he 7418 desirous of obtaining the opinion of Sir Fitzroy
euY and Mr. Baddeley, whether after the decision of
e °Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench and Court of
ode to
Pleas, an application for prohibition should be
~,;me to the Court of Exchequer, and which opinion it
expected would be obtained during the day. The
I°ll.l Was aware that the question raised by the
lip)Pueetion for the prohibition was whether the
Peal had been directed to the right Court—
Whet,
f uer the Queen by the Judicial Committee
o
.$5, privy Council, had power to entertain such appeal.
kekbr. Addams) must repeat, and he begged to im-
' tie tias it upon the Court, that the Bishop of Exeter had
tly,',Viire to create delay, or at all to slight the order of
- k;ettrt.
Si R
st • EItI3ERT JENNER FUBT—I can readily under-
and' that .
'itlit:ADDAfitS—l have no doubt that the Bishop of
kret.,,er Will receive the opinions of Sir Fitzroy Kelly and
1,6;
Kato
during the day as to the propriety of ap-
bfrlß to the Court of Exchequer for a writ of prohi-
-1" aan if no proceedings are taken on those opi-
-114"8 he (Dr. Addams) would undertake that before
tomtleext court day the return to the monition should be
,h.,84 HERBERT JENNER FUST—Am I to understand
C
Addams that if no proceedings are taken in the
01°1111 of Excheqaer that the order of the Court will be
eyed?
b e AD
If
DAMS—Most•
certainly, Sir.
ToLLER (the proctor for the Bishop of Exeter)—
/ wil.° Proceedings are taken in tbe Court of Exchequer
twill undertake, on the part of the Bishop of Exeter, to
th:6 a return to the monition before your surrogate at
sproper time.
thtvir HERBERT JENNER FUsT—What do you say to
)41? (addressing Mr. Bowdler, the proctor for the Rev.
lv.Gurhate).
to BOWDLER said, after the application that has been
1044 by the Learned Doctor, I do not feel it necessary
°p Poe the motion.
oh.
etlrt? HERBERT (TEENER FUST—Then you do not
J
sir,si r-I,OWDLEn—NO, Sir.
at r HERBERT JENNER FUST—Very well, let the case
over till the next court day.
vrdered to stand over accordingly.

ktrob"
.
EY SESSIONS.—(THIS DAY.)
Oei -nre J. E. JOHNSON.
EN., and A Bench of Magistrate:.)
hijateITRAGEOUS ASSAULT ON A CONSTABLE.— William
mbr, 24, tot committing a violent assault upon William
04 0, a police-constable of the N division while in
lia4leention -cf his duty, was eenteneed to three months'
labour at Brixton.

•
."1411•LBRO'-STREET.—(THIS DAY)
100,, 'GE OF FRAIID.—Anna Maria Tolfrey, the
, • Tll-44 who was brought up before Mr. Bingham, on
.loteutittl.r:st,druee y;, the 23d inst., charged with obtaining the sum
• From Mr. William Richardson, bootmaker, 19,
Bisho psgate-street, under false and fraudu-
st4. Pretences, was placed at the bar for further ex-
aation,
letl.,,addition to the evidence which appeared at full
stl,l6`u in this journal on the 23d inst., the following was
tteed
tte..ord Alfred Paget, on being sworn, said he was not
14441nted with the prisoner, neither had he ever seen
wri,belore in his life. The letter produced was not
4,fen by him.
Bocir• Owen secretary to the London Trade Protection
Ali. etl, 170, Regent-street, produced several letters
113,Tehe.had received from parties who had been duped
Prisoner.
aid ;Meth Crosby, 41, George-street, Blackfriars-road,
fron; about four years ago the prisoner obtained VOL
test her mother. A portion of this sum had since been
for tired, and her mother had an I 0 II of the prisoner's
01 This .
Jear2so • was given to her mother about three
Air og 'o.
bets` many
- wen, for the prosecution, said that there were a
bot Many more charges against the prisoner, and
firyea to have her remanded.
'
ptNGHASI remanded her until Wednesday next.

*I)SOM RACES.