The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-27 00:00:00

COURT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, June 26.

(Sittings at Ni3t Price, before L.rd Chief Justico
WILDE and Common Juries.)
HOOPER V. PARKER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages for the injury the plaintiff had
sustained by the assault of the defendant, committed so
far back as February, 1849.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Willes were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Garth fur
the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant had had
transactions together, and the defendant being indebted
to the plaintiff in about 4001., the plaintiff, on the 3d of
February, 1849, called upon the defendant
,in Billiter-
street, and previously to the commencement of the
conversation the clerk was sent out of the
room. The clerk, however, suspecting that " a
bother" was about to take place, de ermined
to uitnefs the proceedings, and altar ,some conver-
sation had taken place he beard the plaimiff call
the defendant "a liar." The defendant then struck at
the plaintiff, who was throw❑ across a chair. The only
appearance of any injury was a slight cut upon they lip.
No further notice was talt,n until the month of August
or September, when the plaintiff, having had an attack
of cholera, di covered that a .6lumber abscess" was
formed on his back. lie applied to his medical adviser,
and was under his treatment for several months, for
which his claim against the plaintiff amounted to 701.
He attributed the formation of the abscess to some strain
occasioned when the plaintiff had fallen over the chair.
Mr. Bransby Cooper and Mr. Cock were also examined
as witnesses, who also said that the abscess might have
been caused from the effects of a fall, but, upon cross-
examination, admitted that it might be caused by various
states of the body as well as by a fall.
The jury retired for about an hour, when they re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 2001. damages.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Lew.)

IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL GRENVILLE FLETCHER.
This insolvent, who had been proprietor of the Kentish
Champion, weekly newspaper, applied to be discharged.
He had been nearly two years in prison, five months of
which time he had bum seriously ill, and had ben pre-
vented from making en earlier application for the want
of means. He had published some "Parliamentary
Portraits," and had been searetary to a company called
the Hydraulic Telegraph Company, which had been
provisionally registered.
Mr. Hell, a wine-merchant, opposed on the ground
that the insolvent had obtained goods from him to nearly
101., and ho had sue=d him in a county court.
It appeared that a friend of the insolvent had offered
some of his ci editors a composition of 4s. in the pound,
which was refused.
Mr. Commissioner LAW was of opinion that Mr. Hell
had good cause of complaint, but whether he would
peas his case rested with him. It was the insolvent's
fault that he had remained so long in confinement.
The case stood adjourned for a week to amend some
formal matters.

IN RE JOHN MEEK'S.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Nichols for a per-
son named Pentecost; Mr. Sargood supported the and-
cation for discharge.
The parties were milkmen in the Wandsworth-road,
and ono charged the other with stealing a milk-can,
which led to a charge of felony, and to an action for fdso
imprisonment, which action was tried at the last limo.'-
ston A,siz and a verdict given for the opposing credi-
tor for 101. The costs were considerable, and hence the
insolvency.
It appeared that the insolvent lad been put into busi-
ness by a gentleman named Lisle, and after the action
was tried a bill of sale was given on which the property
was protected, and the insolvent's family allowed to re-
main on the premises.
Mr. Nrcuons submitted that the property must be
given up before tt-le insolvent was discharged. He com-
plained of a statement on the t.chedu!e reflecting on the
character of the opposing creditor.
Mr. SARGooD consented to expunge the statement.
Mr. Commissioner Lew declined to ord-,r the pro-
perty to bs given up. The execution creditor could
have tried the question, and by being appointed assigoro
he could bring an action to recover possession of the
sAme.

The insolvent was di,,chargcd, and Mr. Pcnteco3t
namcd asis:gnee.

Tiverton ga,l is ut tins tmpty for th.• fir-4;
time during the last sevonteen years, so that out of a popu-
lation of 12.040 inhabitants there is not now a single felon in
custody.—Exeter Gazette.