The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-03 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco.—Before Chief Justice Cockburn,

and Justices Williams, Crowder, and Willes.)
The judges of this court took their seat upon the
bench at 2 o'clock, and at once proceeded to hear
motions.

THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. ROLT.
-MESSRS. MARE'S BANKRUPTCY.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant Byles said this case had been tried
before Mr. Justice Wiles in London, when a ver-
dict was entered for the defendants, subject to cer-
tain questions of law reserved for the consideration
of the full court. The present motion was to enter
a verdict for the plaintiffs. It appeared that Messrs.
Mare had by deed contracted to build a vessel for
the plaintiffs for 14,1201., and to deliver her com-
pleted by the 13th September then next, and if she
was not so delivered then that they should forfeit
101. a day for the extra time taken. The defendant,
Mr. Rolt, became surety for Messrs. Mare performs-
ing the contract. Before the vessel was completed
Messrs. Mare became bankrupt, and the plaintiffs
were put to some expense in completing the vessel.
They now claimed to recover this expense from
Mr. Rolt as surety, and also a further sum in con-
sequence of the vessel not baying been completed
in time. In answer, Mr. Rolt pleaded that it was
part of the contract that the plaintiffs should pay
the price of the vessel by four instalments, the third
of which was to be paid when the vessel was
launched and the fourth when she was completed,
and that the plaintiffs had paid the whole of the
third and part of the fourth instalments before they
became due. This, it was contended, had dis-
charged the surety, inasmuch as if the plaintiff had
not paid the money before it was due they might
out of that sum have reimbursed themselves for any
loss which they had sustained. The learned sergeant
now stated that though the third instalment had in
fact been paid before the vessel was launched, yet at
the time of payment she was quite fit, and the launch-
ing had only been postponed for the convenience of
Mssrs. Mare. He also argued from various fa,cts that
the part of the fourth instalment had been paid
with the sanction, if not at the request, of Mr. Rolt,
and submitted that therefore he could not now take
advantage of that fact.
The court granted a rule nisi to enter a verdict
for the plaintiffs, or, in the alternative, for a new
trial, or judgment non obstante veredicta.

RE WILLIAM COBBETTe-ANOTHER MOTION FOR A

HABEAS CORPUS.

Mrs. Cobbett applied for a writ of habeas corpus
to bring her husband into court with a view to his
discharge from the custody of the keeper of the
Queen's Prison, and in doing so, made a long state-
ment, some parts of which excited a good deal of
merriment. She said that her husband ha-1 been
arrested three times for the same dobt. The case
had never been heard in any court, though she
has bad a summons before Sir F. Pollock, and she
should not have had to trouble their lordships
if she could have got justice from him. The grounds
of her motion were that the action had been
carried on without introducing some necessary
documents ; that the costs had been paid, no
matter by whom ; and that Mr. Cobb3tt had
been discharged. The counsel who had at-
tended against her before Sir F. Pollock had
practised gross deceit, and she had gone to the
Lord Mayor, in order to obtain a summons against
him. She now complained of the fraud of that
learned counsel, who had got into Sir F. Pollock's
room whilst she was outside, and prejudiced
him against her. She had obtained a habeas to
remove Mr. Cobbett from Horsemonger-lane Gaol
to the Queen's Prison, but they had taken
him back to Horsemonger-lane, which they bad
no authority to do. It was only on the third
habeas that Mr. Cobbett had been removed
to the Queen's Prison. There were two writs of
habeas corpus, the Queen's writ and the judge's
writ, but what she had obtained was the Queen's
writ, to remove Mr. Cobbett, and that writ, she
submitted, ought to have been obeyed. She had
taken the writ to the sheriff, and had paid him 1/.
3s, and after that the sheriff bad no power to take
Mr. Cobbett back to Horsemonger-lane. In the
case of " Oldfield v. Cesbett," her husband had
been detained in prison for 12 years, and had been
at length discharged by the greatest authority in
this land, after having been repeatedly reprimanded
and sent back. She complained that she was pre-
judiced by the frequent applications which she had
made for writs of habeas.

The Chief Justice said he understood this case
had been fully gone into in the Court of Queen's
Bench.

Mrs. Cobbett—No, not gone into. Mr. Stur-
geon, one of her counsel, attended to argue the
point of privilege, and Mr. Gibbins, her other
counsel, to argue the point that Mr. Cobbett had
been out of custody, but the court was about to
rise, and the judge said only one counsel should be
heard, and so only the point of privileges had been
argued.

Mr. Justice Crowder said that on the point of
privilege he had refused the writ, and afterwards
au application was made to the Queen's Bench,
when that court decided that he was right. As to
the other point he did not know what that was.
Mrs. Cobbett— That he bad been out of custody.
Mr. Justice Crowder continued—He had made
the usual order that Mr. Cobbett shduld go to the
Queen's Prison, and presently afterwards was in-
formed that he would not pay the usual fee.
Upon that he ordered that he should only be
taken to the Queen's Prison upon paying the fee
which the act cf Parliament required.
Mrs. Cobbett—There were, she might say, mil-
lions, but at all events thousands of ca,es in her
favour. She hal been advised that Mr. Cobbett
had a right to go to the Queen's Prison. As to fee!,
she had paid 501. fur fees for habeases, and the offi-
cers had extorted 201. from her. A judge had after-
wards decided that no fees were due upon a pri-

psoner's habeas ; but officers took as much as they
could get. She should like to go into the question
of fees, for it was a system of downright robbery
altogether. She denied that she bad not paid any
fee. She had paid 71., and that was enough. But
if any fee was due, there was a way of enforcing
its payment.
The Chief Justice suggestel that if the affidavit
could be amended as to that a writ might be granted.
Mrs. Cobbett then moved to set aside a judgment
in an action to which her husband was a party.
The Chief Justice, when she had concluded, said
he could sea ro ground for setting aside the judg-
ment, which had been regularly obtained.
Mrs. Cobbett—ln the other case you will let me
amend ?

The Chief Justice—ln the other case all I can
say is that the affidavit as at present framed does
not show any ground for interference.
Mrs. Cobbett—Then I will apply to your lord-
ships again to-morrow. (Laughter.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.

Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Huddleilton, Mr. Skinner,
Mr. Lock, Mr. Lush, Mr. Mauisty, and Mr.
Monck were called within the bar.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Forsyth haying re-
ceived patents of precedence, were also called to
take their seats accordingly.

CHILLING V. ACCIDENTAL DEATH INSITAANCE
COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Shee moved for a rule for a new
trial on behalf of the defendants iu this action,
which was tried at Maidstone at the last assizes for
the county of Kent, and terminated in a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. It was stated by the learned
sergeant, that the plaintiff, Thomas Chilling, had
insured in the Accidental Company the life of his
father, au old man of 77 years, formerly a journey-
man shoemaker and the receipient of parochial re-
lief for 2,0001., in the month of June, 1855 ; that
in the same month his father made a will in favour
of the plaintiff ; that on the 11th of July the
plaintiff left his father in a chaise, near some stone
at a spot bordered on one
s way and on the other by the
widorekbsynetahre Maidstone,rivermed
railway, and that the next day the pony and the
old man were taken from the river drowned.

The Chief Baron acquiesced in the assertion of
council that he bad not felt satisfied with the ver-
dict, and granted a rule to show cause.

PRICE V. BIRRALL.
Mr. Hillward, on the part of the defendant,
moved (by leave) for a new trial in the action tried
by the Lord Chief Baron at Middlesex sittings, on
the 15th of June last, on the ground of misdirec-
tion. The question was a very narrow onc—
whether the Chief Baron was right in directing
that there was evidence of payment of money when
a witness stated he had sent money, but did not
produce the letter or cheque.
Rule nisi granted.
The Court, having gone through the bar, rose at
10 minutes past three o'clock.