The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 5.

SIBITRY V. WILKINS.—FRAUDULENT BILL TRANSACTION.
In this case Mr. CREASY moved for a rule calling on
the plaintiff and another person to show cause why an
order of Mr. Justice Coleridge to stop the proceedings
in this case, upon payment of certain sums, should not
be set aside with costs. The Learned Counsel said that
the defendant was a clergyman, from whom an accept-
ance of 1501. had been obtained in consequence of a
money lending advertisement, by a person calling him-
self " James Gardener." The defendant did not get a
farthing for his acceptance, but was sued fur the amount
of it by the plaintiff when the bill became due. Before
the bill was presented, Gardener wrote to the defendant
to say he had obtained 701. for the bill, but had applied it
to his own purposes. A correspondence followed, which
ended in Gardener's suggesting that the defendant
should employ a solicitor whom he (Gardener) named,
and by whose advice the judge's order in question was
given. The Learned Counsel put iu several affidavits to
show that the transaction was a fraudulent one as against
his client, and the Court granted a rule nisi.

PITMAN V. PARSONS.
In this case, which was stated to be of a similar cha-
racter, a rule was also granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron PLATT and

Common Juries.)
BOSTOCK V CAIINT.

Mr. Charnock and Mr. R. Bolton Barton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, with Mr.
Dowdeswell, were counsel for the defendant.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault and battery. The defendant pleaded a
justification.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a coffee-house-
keeper, and an ex-member of the prize-ring, while the
defendant, the well-known pugilist, was the landlord of
the Coach and Horses public-house, St. Martin's-lane.
The facts connected with the case will be gained from the
following brief detail of the evidence:— _ _

Alexander Webb, a copying clerk, proved that on the
6th of June last, as soon as he entered the Coach and
Horses Tavern, he saw the defendant run down stairs
and strike the plaintiff, who, after receiving a few blows,
fell down; defendant then picked him up with one hand
and struck him with the other, and ultimately pushed him
into the street. The plaintiff fell upon the pavement,
and, while in this position, he was kicked by the de-
fendant and rendered insensible.

Cross-examined—Witness was formerly a baker by
profession.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—A professional baker? Wit-
ness—Yes, I acted strictly up to my profession.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—You understood all about
the potatoes, alum, and that kind of thing, eh? Witness
—Yes, I was up to it all. The plaintiff was a tidy sized
man, nearly like you (pointing to the Learned Sergeant),
only not quite so stout; however, compared to the de-
fendant, he was as a pigmy to a giant. Did not hear the
plaintiff insult Mrs. Caunt.
The foregoing evidence was corroborated by another
witness, who said that the blow given by the defendant
was sufficient to have killed any man who had not the
constitution of an elephant, Had seen the defendant
that morning in Westminster Hall, walking up and
down with a riding whip in his hand. The defendant
said, " How do you do?" Witness replied, "Pretty
well, thank you." Defendant said, " You know me."
Witness answered, "I regret I have not that pleasure."
Defendant remarked, "It you give evidence here I will
transport you." " Oh, will you?" returned the witness.
" Yes," said the defendant, "1 will take long odds I do."
Witness demanded, " What odds will you take?" and
Caunt walked away.—(Loud laughter.)

Mr. Striven, hOuse.s-surgeon of Charing-cress Hos-
pital, proved that the plaintiff had received several
bruises, though not of a severe nature.
Mr. Sergeant Wilda/is addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant, and said that if he proved, as he ex-
pected he should, the plea of justification, he hoped they
would be of opinion that the old English verdict of
" served him right" would apply in this case. Several
witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant, who
proved that the plaintiff bad applied very disgusting and
abusive epithets to Mrs. Caunt on the day the alleged
assault took place; and that the defendant had given
orders not to admit the plaintiff into the house. Two
witnesses swore that the plaintiff had neither been
struck nor kicked by the defendant; that be had been
merely pushed into the stri et and had fallen down.
Mr. CIIARNOCK replied in a humourous speech; and
the Learned Betor; having summed up, the jury, after
an absence from court of half an hour, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.