The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-14 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

NEWTON V. SHERIFF OF GLOUCESTER.
This was an action for illegal arrest and forcible
entry. It was one of several cases arising out of certain
family differences, with the particulars of which the
public must be by this time quite sufficiently familiar.
The trial took place in this Court before the Lord Chief
Justice at the sittings of the last term, when the verdict
was for the plaintiff, with damages 501.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD obtained a rule to arrest
judgment.
This day Mr. Newton, in person, showed cause
against that rule, and addressed the Court at great
length, observing, amongst other matters, that it had
been asserted to his injury by the other side, that he
was in destitute circumstances, whereas the fact was,
that in two months of the last vacation his fees amounted
to 404

The COURT decided to enlarge the rule for one week,
to wait the issue of other proceedings pending in the
Queen's Bench.

WILKINSON V. LORD LICHFIELD.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1,2004,
the defence being that the noble defendant had not made
the bill, and had not endorsed it. The verdict was for
the plaintiff,
Mr. Sergeant MANNING, for the defendant, subsequently
obtained a conditional rule for a new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence, the Hon. Col. An-
son, brother of the defendant, and other persons, amongst
whom were Mr. Stevens, his Lordship's secretary, when
Postmaster-General, and also the Inspector of Franks—
all well acquainted with Lord Lichfield's handwriting—
having sworn that they did not believe the signature in
the indorsement to be his. The Learned Sergeant, at
that time, further urged that the plaintiff had not shown
in what manner the bill came into possession ; whereas,
if his case were a good one, he could have called Mrs.
Margaret Edmonds, from whom it was alleged to have
been received. .

Mr. Sergeant SHEA this day showed cause against
the rule. With respect to the handwriting of the
defendant, he contended that the evidence of the cashier
to Messrs. Stevenson and Salt, who had been his Lord-
ship's bankers for thirty years, ought to outweigh the
evidence offered to support the charge of forgery. That
witness held a place of high responsibility, in which it
was part of his most important duties to make himself
acquainted as well as possible with Lord Lichfield's
handwriting. As to the cal ling of Mrs. Edmonds, he
contended that it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to
call her. On the contrary, she would be rather a wit-
ness for the defence if the other side relied on their own
ease. That lady, as it appeared from some remarkable
proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy, kept a house
of play in St. James's-place ; and from the
nature of other transactions, it was not very improbable
to suppose that a nobleman of great wealth
had frequented it.
Mr. Justice MA.ULE—It did not appear that Lord
Lichfield was possessed of great wealth.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA—lie kept a large establishment in
the most expensive part of the metropolis.
Mr. Justice Matrix—That is sometimes done without
great wealth.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA submitted that there seemed no
improbability in supposing that his Lordship might have
made and endorsed the bill in Mrs. Edmonds's house, under
cireumstsaices which would account for his forgetting
afterwards that he had done so. Nor was it at all extra-
ordinary that the plaintiff should, without hesitation,
receive and discount the bill in question, endorsed by a
nobleman holding so high a pest under her Majesty's
Government as that of Postmaster-General. Ile trusted
their Lordships would discharge the rule.
Mr. Sergeant MANNING replied briefly, and
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court were of
opinion that the plaintiff bad not put to the jury all the
evidence which he ought to have given, and that it would
be well to give the case a rehearing, upon the usual
condition, the payment by the defendant of the costs of
the previous trial and of this application.—Rule accord-
ingly made absolute.

ADMIRALTY COURT—(THIS DAY)
Dr. Lushington presided in this Court today for the
hearing of cases of salvage and collision. The Masters
of the Trinity House sat upon the bench with .the
Learned Doctor, for the purpose of deciding upon the
nautical technicalities and manoeuvres.

COLLISION.—THE LATONAt
This was a suit brought by Thomas itichardson, the
masier and owner of the brig Latonfl„ of Newcastle, 152
ions burden, against the owners
a west country vessel,
called the Anne, to recor'er compensation for damage
sustained by his yeast's, In consequence of a collision with
the Anne, which was alleged to have been caused by the
unskilful and unsesmanlike conduct of the master and
crew of that vessel.

It appeared from the affidavits which were read on
both fades, that on the 19th of March, 1844, the Latona
was proceeding in ballast to Newcastle, and when about
five miles off the coast of Suffolk, the wind at the time
being north eastward, she perceived the Anne approach
approach-
ing her nearly upon the same tack. The man at the
helm of the Latona tried to put her about, but failing
in this, and seeing they could not cross the Anne—botb
vessels going at Ch
ord rate of about four
hour--the crew was ered to let all nlis a the collision might be lessened. This v- •
captain alleged that his vessel rv.' ...a done, and the
the two vessels struck ear'/2,ack, thatti
On the part of ti-
_...1 other. that, at the #'
-'4" ("Mrs ot the Anne, it was urged
Latonn
...me the eollision took place, the sails of the
little
aintwayd
wtar
si whenewell
et
10l
were fitiLl ; that the Anne, oti sae__. ,t,' '6lll '6IIIQI
.essel bearing upon her, put her 'helm up, to run off from
theme rmuch
hsw
her.ilneds,s an
bTdu
rht htehaet
AI the buten:La
than
wasatot : a _fie
westg
Latona,t h ve
ec
sroayuamnnetd r, y
vessel, of
known that there was a strong feeling of rivalry between
the Newcastle masters and those of the west country,
and it was alleged that the collision arose solely from
the captain of the Latona trying to outvie the Anne in
manoeuvering.
Dr. L USHINGTON, having recapitulated the evidence to
the Trinity Masters, said it was solely a question for
them to decide, as it was one entirely of seamanship.
The Trinity Masters, after a short consultation, de-
cided that the Anne was right in keeping to the wind-