The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-12 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOM(BEefoCre/RthCe CIRCUIT.._
crimp.—
Guildford, Aug. 10.
BARON.)
SMITH V. ORCHARD.—PLEA OF INFANCY.

This was an action to recover the sum 0f374135. 63.,
for goods sold and delivered, in one count, and in ano-
ther 40L upon a bill of exchange accepted by the de-
fendant. The only plea upon the record was one alleg-
ing that at the time the defendant accepted the bill he
was an infant under twenty-one years of age.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Lush were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Has kins was for the defendant.
is an upholsterer, carrying
on
appears,ondnit-street, and the defendant
.is aT hrei business
plaintiff,
ka in m
ndsail-;lothtbs maker at No. 5, West Smith-
field. In the beginning of the present year the defen-
dant called upon the plaintiff and ordered several arti-
cles of furniture, amounting in value to the sum above-
mentioned, and on the 24th of February he gave a bill
in payment. It was understood at this time that the
sailcloth business belonged to the defendant, but it ap-
peared in point of fact teat it belonged to his mother
and that ho was merely minsiging it for her.
Mr. HAWKINS said he bad no defence upon the count
for goods sold and delivered, but as regarded the bill
of exchange he should show that at the period when the
defendant accepted it he was not of age, and therefore
was not liable.

Mrs. Orchard, the defendant's mother, was then ex-
amined. She deposed that the defendant was her son,
and that he was born on the 14th of April, 1830.
Mr. CHA3IBERS, in reply, said be thought the course
that had been adopted by the defendant in this case was
most absurd. He must have been perfectly well aware
that he had no defence upon the count in the declara-
tion for goods sold and delivered, and all the expense of
this action had been incurred fir the sake of saving the
difference between the actual value of the goods and the
amount of the bill of exchange.
The CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said it appeared
to him a most prefl.gate proceeding for a mother and
son to carry on business in this manner, and fur the
latter to order goods as upon his own account, and when
the time came for payment, to turn round upon the cre-
ditor, and say that be was not of age; and he could not
help observing, that there appeared to be a good deal of
fraud as well as folly mixed up in the transaction. He
then directed the jury to return a verdict for the defend-
ants
upon the plea for the bill of .exchange, and for the
plaintiff upon the other. The effect of this, he said,
would be, that the plainlatiaff,
and would
a Is
a h
shillings costs for that plea,
witnesses in coming down to Guildford to prove the de-
fendant was under age; but the bulk of the costs, pro-
bably 50/. or 601, would fall upon the
.defe.ndant, the
whole sum actually in dispute not bung more than
21. 10..
The jury returned a verdict in accordance wit h ha
Lordship's direction, and the Chief Baron direAed exe-
cution to issue in a week.
DAY AN) ANOTHER V. lIA ZELLRIGG.— PROVISIONAL
COM3IIIsTEEINIEN.
TSehrogeaaontitorweaesandMr.
brought
yHooney man were for the plain-
tiff. The defendant was not repregtteif by counsel.
the plaintiffs, who are ex-
tensive lithographic printers, to recover 4001. for pre-
paring plans, &c., for the B stop, Grantham, Lincoln,
and Midland
n o
defence
bCountiesei n
geThe defendant was
sued as a member of the acting provisional committee,
and
the jury returned a 'li erdict
f.,r the amount claimed.
DIARRINER V. CIIADWICK. WALES RAILWAY.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of 7001.
for 101417 due to the plaintiff, and also damages for his ,