The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-24 00:00:00

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

DAVID PEARSON and JAMES PEARSON, builders,
Perthshire, Jan. 27 and Feb. 17, at twelve, at the Burgh
Court-room, Perth.

WILLIAM CRAWFORD, ironmonger, Dundee, Jan. 26
and Feb. 16, at two, at the chambers of Baxter and Alexander,
Dundee.

THOMAS COWAN SMITH, insurance broker, Ec1:0-
burgh, Jar,. 29 and Feb. 19, at two, at the chambers of J. 'P.
Falkner, Edinburgh. ' •
JOHN SMITH, grocer, Glasg',w, Jan. 29 and Feb. 19;at
twelve, at the chambers of D. and J. Wilkie, Glasgow.
ISAAC 'MERCER, currier, Dunse, Jan. 29 and Feb. 20,
at twelve, at the Town•hall, Dundee.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, Jun. 23.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF• LONDON.

In this case Mr. KELLY, on the application of the Church-
wardens of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, New Fish-street
Hill, moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue against the Corporation of London, for the
payment of 92/., the amount of arrears for non-payment of a
perpetual charge of 81. a year. The charge in question was
created by Act of Parliament, in the year 1762, on
the Bridge House estate, as compensation for a foot passage
made under the steeple of St. Magnus Church. On the erec-
tion of the new bridge, the passage, not being any longer re-
quired, was enclosed, and the Corporation have refused pay.
went of the charge on account of it since the year 1832.
Rule granted.

STYLES V. DULCKEN.

(Before a Common Jury.)

This was an antion for Lase imprisonment.
Mr. Hu stritav• said that in this action James Styles was the
plaintiff, and Theodore Augustus Dulcken, the husband of
Madam Dulcken, the celebrated pianist, the defendant. The
parties had had dealings together on various occasions
relating to horses. ,Mr. Dulcken conceiving ' himself to
have been defrauded in the last transaction between
them gave the defendant into custody, and when be arrived
at the station-house refused to make any charge. He was
discharged the same day. It was on account of this imprison-
ment that the present action had been brought. The only de-
fence which Mr. Dulcken had put on the record was, that he
was not guilty. It was for the jury to say, under these cir-
cumstances, what compensation the plaintiff was entitled to
receive.

John Spires examined by Mr. PLATT, on behalf of Mr. Hum-
frey, who had left the Ceurt—Was a police constable. On the Bth
of September, while he was standing at the corner of Burwood-
place, Edgeware-road, Mr. Dulcken sent for him, and told
him that he wished him to take a prisoner in custody for
swindling him. Ho arrested Styles afterwards in the street,
and then fetched Mr. Dulcken to the police-office. It ap-
peared from the conversation which took place that the horse
had been sold by Mr. Savory, and they all three went in
search of him, but in vain. Mr. Styles was discharged on
his promising to meet Mr. Dulcken on the following morning
to have a settlement.

Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Knew a public :house
called the Eagle and Vul'ure. \Vent there and saw Styles
and Savory come out together. Mr. Styles said that Mr.
Savory was the person who sold the horse.
Patrick Conolly, sergeant of police, gave similar testimony
with respect to what took place at the police station.
Mr. THESIGER addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said when the jury were aware of the circumstances of this
case, he felt confident that the plaintiff wolld he perfectly safe
in their hands. Mr. Dulcken had, unfortunately for him, on a
previous occasion, purchased a horse of the defendant, and
had given a bill f„r a larger sum than he was bound
to pay, leaving him a creditor of Mr. Styles to the
amount of ten guineas. Mr. Styles, under these circum-
stances, recommended to Mr. Dulcken's notice a horse.
Styles said the horse belonged to Mr. Savory who kept the St.
Andrew's Tavern. The horse was eventually purchased for
45 guineas, a warranty being given by Mr. Savory as to its
soundness. It was sent, on the day it was purchased,
to Mr. Patteson, a livery stable-keeper, who immediately
said that it was unsound, and not worth five guineas.
The result was that the horse was sold by the defendant for
71. ss. He admitted, that under these circumstances, his
client, a foreigner, took a step which could not be justified by
law; but, considering the circumstances which led to it,
and the slight imprisonment which took place, he thought the
jury would give only a farthing damage 3.
Edward Cussens (examined by Mr. THESIGER) deposed to
the trial of an action for 151., brought by the defendant against
Mr. Styles, in November, in which the jury returned a ver-
dict for 81. against the latter. Some receipts were excluded,
on account of the absence of stamps.
William Taylor, a coachman to the defendant, deposed to the
horse being brought home. Witness took him to Mr. Patteson's
stables; who pronounced him to be a roarer.
Patteson, a livery-stable keeper in Marylebone.lane, de-
posed to the horse being brought to his stables. He found him
a roarer. Styles at his stables admitted that he was not sound
in tee wind, and said that he did not intend that horse for Mr.
Dulcken, and he should have another.
Some further evidence was adduced as to the value of the
horse.

Mr. PLATT having addressed the jury for the plaintiff,
The Learned JUDGE said the jury must of course return a
verdict for the plaintiff, as the defendant had clearly acted con-
trary to law. They might consider, however, whether the
transaction was.such- as to induce Mr. Duleken reasonably to
think that he might haVe recourse to the criminal law, and
by their opinion!; -this point they vould regulate the damages
to be awarded.'
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, one
farthing.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 23.
(Before Mr. Baron RoLr.E.)
WRITS OF ERROR.
The Learnel Judges of the Queen's Bench and Exchequer
met this morning in the Exchequer Chamber, and announced
they would sit to hear writs of error from the Queen's Bench on
Thursday, the Ist, and from the Exchequer on Tuesday, the
6th of February.

DAY V. GRUNDY.
This was an action to recover 48/., the amount of a pro-
missory note at three months' sight. The defendants and the
father of the plaintiff entered into partnership for a term
of twenty-one years as saddlers' ironmongers, in Great
Queen street, Lincoln's Inn-fields. The partnership was
dissolved in eight months, owing to the plaintiff's
father being involved in pecuniary matters, and because
an execution. had been put into the house, and on the pods
fi of the rm. It was proved by the evidence of the brothers- of
the plaintiff that he had advanced the money to his father, who
gave him the promissory note in the name of " Day and Co."
It was also proved by evidence that the plaintiff, who is 24
years of age, only received Bs. a week, which, the counsel fur
the defendant contended, gave him little or no opportunity of
saving a single shilling, and that the promissory note was con-
cocted by the plaintiff and his father a few clas before the disso-
lution of partnership, for the purpose of involving the defendant
in the matter, and ultimately obtaining his share of the amount
as co-partner. It was further asserted that the obligation was
one wholly unconnected with the firm, and entirety of a Ovate
nature. The defendant's solicitor stated that he saw the
plaintiff at a public-house in White Ilart-yard, and on asking
him if the promissory note was a private or business transac-
tion, he stated that it was a private matter, and that a female
sitting behind the bar told him to hold his tongue, and to eall
his uncle to speak about the business.—Verdict for the defendant.