The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-07 00:00:00

mffi..--.-- • '•.''

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(TRYS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was occupied the whole iavArre:ng in hear-
ing motions for new trials in cases tries' before Mr.
Justice Patteson, who took his seat to-day in shis CNA
with the other judges, for the purpose of those inotiorA
being brought on.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY•)

THE NEW JUDGE.
Mr. Erle, Q.C., was called within the bar as sergeant-
at-law, having been previously invested with the'
coif by Lord Chief Justice Denman, in the usual.fortor
at the Judges'-chambers. The Learned Gentleman
created a sergeant preparatory to his being called to the
bench. He will take his seat with the judges of thi*
Court (Common Pleas) to-morrow, in the room of 11,,r;
Justice Erskine, who has retired, in consequence of t'""
bursting of a blood-vessel some months ago.

THOMAS V. DUNN.—THE CHINESE COLLECTION.
This was an action upon an agreement, in which th:
jury found for the defendant, the proprietor of th
Chinese Collection, Knightsbridge.
The plaintiff yesterday, in person, moved the C°ll6
for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence. Their Lordships adjourned the heft,
ing to this day, when Mr. Thomas proceeded with
application.
The verdict was for the defendant upon the first Piet
which was, that the agreement was a forgery. The jur.ri
were, as plaintiff contended, governed in this finding '',l„
the evidence of several engravers, who swore that certsl
signatures must have been forgeries, on account of they;
exact similitude, the witnesses believing, from their long
experience, that no person, repeating his signature bow
fide, and without any designed imitation, would prodg,ee,
autographs so perfectly alike. He was now prepared in
counter affidavits from other engravers, accompuo'"
with numerous autograph signatures and addreso
from letters and envelopes received by the plaintiff priori
to the action, some of them being from parties oppose
to him in this cause. These autographs were verified by
the post-marks.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the sigs;N
tures were not the only grounds uponwhich the jury res'o
their verdict. But the evidence was too long for to
go over now upon his notes, the trial having occur
two days.
Mr. Thomas said that he was prepared with evidene,l
doo;:mentary and otherwise, to rebut all the other materm
esidene„:. for the defence. He then went into a lengthened detail of the transactions between him and ~
defendant frox..-1 their first introduction to the rupturebetween them.
The chief points were, that the plain°
was engaged by Mr. Dunn as his agent to contract for
the construction of tit,
e building for the Chinese Colleci
tion, and to obtain certaL, leases, including the lease
the ground (on which the hajlding now stands), and Or
of an adjacent cottage. On co.:,dition of his executi
these agencies to the satisfactium of the defendut!,
he was to receive the sum of six guineas a weer&
its long as the rents of the exhibition your,
produce that sum. Towards the close of Novetabs_
1842, he received notice from Mr. Dunn that his enguro,
ment should terminate on the 31st of the eosin',
December. In the course of a correspondence vil3l,,cr,
then commenced between the plaintiff and Mr. M.TUZio,"
the defendant's attorney, the latter stated that Mr. Pl",)
had no recollection of signing the agreement, and, o
wo
it must be a forgery. Subsequently Mr. Dunn male ;
affidavit to the effect that the signature was a forger/I
but afterwards he stated that he had no rec;
lection of making the affidavit, and that "
was under the influence of opium when he was swell to
it. The plaintiff went into a detail of correspendfO!,
and transactions to show that the agreement had bet;
entered into. He also, at great length, explained ueio
tain discrepancies between the case which he set up
Chancery and that which was tried here, and which sera
parent discrepancies bad, he said, erroneously jails°

the jury. -
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the PI
were influenced by the fact that in September, 18421
plaintiff was negotiating with Captain Sibon, the
prietor of the Waterloo Model, for an engagement at 7
guineas a week to superintend that exhibition. This 1.1;
gotiztion appeared to the jury to be incompatible 01.„"
the exWence of such an agreement as the plaintiff
sisted up
Thomas said that he was prepared with Proof
which had not goi:e to the jury, to show that this WI,
negotiation for the reoewal of an engagement, which_l4s
bad before held for nine months, concurrently with w;
in Mr. Dunn's establishment, and with the full koni;
ledge of both parties. He had been five years ill tio.
service of Captain Sibon, without s, constant or rego
v
personal attendance at the exhibition being either nto
cessary or required by his employer. It was knowL,
Mr. Dunn and Capt. Sibon, that he could And did el`'
tively manage the two establishments.
The. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE reminded Mr. Thl,fr,
L that after hiving received notice of discharge frail the
Tann, he write` a letter, which was interpreted 171_,,er
jury into an admiision that the defendant had the Pu''
to tcrtninate the engagement upon a month's notice.
Mr. Thomas said, that at the time he was not resol/be
to picas the agreement to a suit at law ; but when to.
imputation of forgery was cast upon him, he was e°he
vinced that. a settloment by arbitration would not 0
enough to vindicate his character. Therefore he brougr
this action, and was resolved, with their Lordships' 170
mission, to persevere in it.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said that the Court could Bald
decide according to what had appeared on the trita pfd
what might now be presented upon affidavit. They en :he
not act upon Mr. Thomas's statements, as to whit
might expect to prove upon a new trial.
(The trial had not concluded when our repoti left.)