The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-23 00:00:00

to it if it had been read over to him so as that 'he could have
understood it. -
The prisoner Griffin said he had no questions to ask, and
he desired time to procu:• a legal adviser.
The prisoner was then remanded until Friday next. He
was immediately removed in custody.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Jan. 22.
QUEEN V. SCOTTON.

At the Summer Assizes last year the defendant
was indicted fur perjury in a case under the game-
laws, and was convicted. On the 224 of November
last Mr. Sergeant Talfourd obtained a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial had, or that the verdict should be entered
for the defendant. The ground of the application was
that the information with respect to which the de-
fendant was indicted was not in accordance with the
Act of Parliament, which provides that in cases of
tresspass under the game-laws, the information with
respect to it should be given by one person to the
magistrates and deposed to on oath by another. The
defendant was indicted for perjury upon the informa-
tion given by him of the trespass and poaching, but
no depositions upon oath were taken, and it was con-
tended that as this was contrary to the terms of the
Act of Parliament, no indictment for perjury could
be maintained. The verification of the information
by the Magistrate, Major Chetwynd, was in Court,
but no depositions upon oath.
Mr. Whateley and another Learned Gentleman, to-
day showed cause against the rule.
The COURT held that as the terms of the Act of
Parliament had not been complied with, the objection
on the part of the defendant was a good one.
Rule, consequently, made absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BURGESS V. BOELEFEUR AND ANOTHER.

- This was an action brought by an inhabitant of
the parish of Paddington against the overseers to re-
cover the amount of the expenses incurred by the
plaintiff, in the successful prosecution of nine houses
of ill-fame within the parish. The case was recently
heard at Westminster Sessions before Mr. Justice
Coltman, and the jury found for the plaintiff in the
amount of damages claimed, namely 601. •
Mr. Sergeant BomrAs this day obtained a rule nisi
for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence.
The Court was occupied the rest of the day in
hearing motions of distringas, and for a rule nisi
which was granted in the case of horde and Cass,
which was of no interest.

COURT OF EX6IIEQUEI?, Jan. 22.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
SAUNDERS V. ROSS.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 811. 55., the
amount of commission for the sale of a house belonging to the de.,
fendant in Chester-place, Regent's-park. The plaintiff is a house_
agent in Regent-street, and the defendant is the proprietor of
several houses. The present action arose out of his refusal to pay
the amount claimed, on the ground that he, and nut the plaintiff,
was instrumental in disposing of the house. . .

Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Bradwell appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Thesiger acid Mr. Ogle for the defendant. . .

A witness ❑amed Stovell, the plaintiff's clerk, was called to
prove that the defendant once, in his hearing, did not deny his
liability to pay the commission, and that on another occasion he re.
fused to pay the claim oa the ground that he had received a corn.
munication from the purchaser of the house some days before he
(the purchaser) communicated with the plaintiffin the matter.

Mr. THESIGER addressed the jury for the defendants. The
system of paying house agents by commission was exceedingly re.
prehensible ; their charges, as In the present case. were frequently
exorbitant, and gave rise to consideraole litigation. If the house
agent was unsuccessful all his trouble brought him no reward. It
were better to pay them, like other tradesmen, a certain sum for
the work required to be done. The witness who had been exa.
mined on the part of the plaintiff had not given his evidence in so
satisfactory a manner as he could have wished. The plaintiff had
stated that he sent the particulars of the house, and a card which
wou:d admit to inspect it, to the gentleman who ultimately pur.
chased it; but he distinctly denied that he ever received from the
plaintiff any such particulars. He would call witnesses to prove
that Mr. Marshall, late of Soho-square; the gentleman who pur-
chased the house, visited it, and expressed his intention of pur-
chasing it previous to receiving or having any communication with
the plaintiff.
Mr. Marshall, aged 85, examined.—l saw the house in Chester-
terrace two or three days previous to hearing anything of the
plaintiff. The letter produced, expressing my opinion that Messrs.
Saunders and Woolley were 'entitled to the commission, was
neither written by me, nor by my direction. I applied to the firm
relative to other houses, but never concerning the house in Chester.
terrace.

The w'tnesq, who was here sharply cross-examined by Mr.
COCKBURN on the subject of the letters produced, rather testily ex-
claimed, "I will not be spoken to, in that, way. I have not been
in a Court of Justice for forty years. lam the Master of one hun-
dred men, and was never spoken to in that way. I presume I may
now go home."

John Wasty examined—l wrote the letter expressing Mr.
Marshall's opinion that the plaintiff' was entitled to the commission
by his direction.

Mr. CoeKettax then addressed the jury for the plaintiff.
The Learned Counsel for the defendant bad stated that the
witnesses for the plaintiff had committed deliberate perjury—
that they had concocted the letter which Mr. Marshall, a man
who must soon appear lefore another and more awful tribunal,
and whose memory he himself could not trust, stated to be
written without his direction or consent. A witness in the
full possession of his faculties stated that the letter was written
by him by Mr. Marshall's direction. Air. Marshall's faculties
as well as his memory might have deceived him, as was no
doubt the case.

The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Jan. 19.
(Before Mr. Baron RoLrE. )
HART B. WINDSOR.

This was a❑ action brought by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant for the recovery of I'2l. 103., the amount of a quarter's
rent for a house in Spring-place, Wandsworth. The defence
set up was, that the house was untenantable, from its being
infested by that domestic animal the " bug" to an alarming ex-
tent. The house was taken under an agreement at Alidsum-
riser last, and at a yearly rent of 501. fur three vears. The
deendant, from the annoyances to which himself and family
were subjected, from the nightly peregrinations of the bug
tribe, vacated the house in fourteen days after taking posses-
sion, the key of which was sent to the plaintiff, with an inti-
mation, that the daring inroads upon the peace of the inhabi-
tants by the animals in question could not longer be endured.
The Counsel for the defendant (Mr. WATSON) stated that
bugs were wholly unknown to this country until the great fire
of 1666. Shortly afterwards American timber was imported,
and being extensively used in the building of houses, intro-
dueed that noxious animal, the bug, into the peaceful houses
of Merry England. In one of the barbarous States of India it
it as the practice to retain a number of loathsome reptiles.
Among them sieve a great number of bugs, and at night beg-
gars were engaged to allow them to feed on their blood. Bugs
like departed Ipirite, only came forth at night to prey upon
humanity, and having feasted thereon, retire to their lair dur-
ing the day.
The following witnesses were called and examined
Elizabeth Trumper—ls the defendant's sister-in-law. On
visiting the house, to get it in readiness for habitation, she per-
ceived a number of marks cn the wall. In the upper rooms
there were a great number of bugs. The servant was quite
horrified. Ile at first thought the bugs might be got rid of.
He got poiso4 and gave it to them, but they did not leave us.
The defendant did nut go into the house to live for some time,
on that Recount. I could not sleep at nights. I was dread•
fully bitten. I found several bugs on my dress and breast.
Several witnesses were called, some of whom stated that they
had never seen more than a dozen, and others that they had
seen thousands of bugs. One had been bitten on the wrist,
whilst taking tea.
Alfred Walker, bug destroyer to her Majesty, was called and
examined.—Had had a great deal of experience in the killing
of bugs. Was not a rat-catcher•. Was never employed by her
Majesty to kill rats. On being employed to extirpate bugs, he
generally warranted the place for twelve months. Her Majesty
had not long conferred the honour upon him. He had never
seen a house so dreadfully infested by bugs, as the one occupied
by Mr. Windsor. He had no doubt about curing the house of
them, had he been employed.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and stated
that the first plea was to the effect that the agreement was not
a valid one ; secondly, that the existence of bags rendered the
house unfit for habitation ; and, thirdly, that the defendant
had been induced to take possession of the house, on the ground
that it was free from the nuisance which was the cause of his
leaving it.

The jury found for the plaintiff on the first and third pleas,
and for the defendant on the second. The question of costs
will be argued in another Court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 20.
IN RN RRNRY RU/I=LL.

This was a petition on behalf of the applicant, to receive an
insolvent's certificate. He had been an officer in the navy, and he
attributed. his insolvency to the fact of having been engaged in
betting transactions, which eventually turned out unfortunately,
He had lost as much as 450 L, he stated, in one day, and for
which he had given his acceptance. The total amount of
his debts, including the sum of 450/. just alluded to, the
amount for which no consideration was received, was 8501.
He was willing to allocate a certain portion of his half.pay to
the liquidation of all his bona fide debts ; and which oiler he
made to those creditors to whom he considered himself justly in-
debted, but they refused the proposition in expectation that his
lather, who was a very wealthy man, and had before paid his
debts, would again relieve him from his difficulties. He refused
to honour those acceptances which he had undertaken on account
of betting transactions, and in consequence of so doing, he was
now compelled to appeal to the Court. He stated in his schedule
that the only assets lie had available, after his excepted articles,
was his pension, or half-pay, as Lieutenant in the navy.
After a short examination the case was eventually adjourned to
this day month.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 22.
IN RE CHARLES DYER.

When this case was called on, a creditor appeared
to oppose the insolvent's petition.
The officer of Horsemonger-lane Gaol stated that
the insolvent was so dangerously unwell as to render
it wholly impossible, to remove him to this Court, and
that he had been in such a state of health since his
con►tinemnent in gaol as to appear within a day or two
of his dissolution.

The opposing creditor being appealed to, said that,
under the circumstances, the insolvent should be in
Court .during the hearing of the opposition, and he
would consent to 'allow it to drop.
Mr. Commissioner POLLOCK then told the officer
that if he brought the - unfortunate insolvent to the
door of the Court, he wuuld go out •there and
.give
him his discharge. •