The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-08 00:00:00

EX-PARTE VAN SANDAU.

The further arguments in this part-heard bankrupt
petition occupied the Court the remainder of the day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 7.

The Vice-Chancellor of England did not sit to-day,
in consequence of having to attend the Privy Council.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGUT BRUCE.)
PALIN V. GATIJERCOLE.

This case, which was expected to come on to-day, on
a:motion to commit the defendant, was not mentioned
till the rising of the Court. The petitioner, the Rev.
W. Palin, the Rector of Stafford, Essex, and the
defendant, the Rev. Michael Augustus Gathercole,
the editor of the Churchman newspaper, who had been
ordered in contempt for disobeying an injunction that
bad been granted against him. At the rising of the
Court,
Mr. JAMES Russsu. said he had a motion to make
for a committal for contempt, but as the defendant had
given a counter notice of motion to dissolve the in-
junction, he would delay his motion till that was
brought on and disposed of. It is generally believed
that the reverend defendant will defend himself, and
that the whole matter is put off till the next motion
day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was occupied the whole morning in hear-
ing motions for new trials in cases tried before Mr.
justice Patteson, who took his seat to-d 27 in this Court
with the other judges, for the purpose of those motions
being brought on.

THE BARON DE BODE V. THE QUEEN.

This was a traverse to an inquisition on a petition of
right, which was tried at bar. The verdict had been
given on the facts for the suppliant, but the statute
of limitations had been pleaded, and also that the
debt had not occurred during the reign of her present
Majesty. On these pleas a verdict had passed for the
Crown. The Solicitor-General had also on the first issue
requested the Court to put it to the jury whether a certain
specific sum had been paid by the Government of France
to that of England, in satisfaction of this claim of the
Baron de Bode. On this issue the jury found for the

Crown.
Mr. M. D. HILL now moved for a rule nisi to have
the first issue found for the suppliant, on the ground
that the question submitted to the jury did not arise
from the traverse to the inquisition, but from an allega-

tion in the petition with which the Court had nothing
to do. Also, for a rule to enter up judgment
for the suppliant, notwithstanding the finding as to the
statute of limitations, and as to the fact of the debt hav-
ing accrued in a former reign, inasmuch as the statute
of limitations did not apply to cases of petitions of right,
and that the fzet of the debt having accrued in a former
reign, ha I nothing to do with the matter at issue.
The COURT granted the rule on all the points.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 7.
Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice WICHTMAN
and a Common Jury.)
PRICE AND ANOTHER V. BAXTER AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of 551.,
for work done by a person named Brain, as a copper-
plate printer.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Wills appeared for the plaintiffs;
and Mr. Martin and Mr. Smith for the defendants.

It appeared that Brain was employed by a person
named Birch to print some copper-plates for "Faust." It
turned out that Birch had not capital to go on with the
work, and ultimately became insolvent. The Messrs.
Baxter, the Bible publishers, of Paternoster-row,
took up the publication, and employed another pub-
,isher to bring out the work, as it was not in their
line of publication. The Messrs. Baxter made advances
on the plates worked off for Birch, and 371. 16s. for the
series of plates printed, after which it was alleged the
Niessrs. Baxter undertook the continuance of the work.
subsequently to this Brain became a bankrupt, and the
present plaintiffs succeeded to his rights.
It was contended on the part of the defendants that
Brain did the work for Birch. and not for them ; and
that the official assignee debited Birch for the accounts
sent into him after Brain's bankruptcy.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
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 Penman, in the usual form,
St the Judges'-chambers. The Learned Gentleman is
created a sergeant preparatory to his being called to the
bench. He will take his seat with the judges of this
Court (Common Pleas) to-morrow, in the room of Mr.
Justice Erskine, who has retired, in consequence of the
bursting of a blood-vessel some months ago.
THOMAS V. DUNN.—THE CHINESE COLLECTION.
This was an action upon an agreement, in which the
jury found for the defendant, the proprietor of the
Chinese Collection, Knightsbridge.
The plaintiff yesterday, in person, moved the Court
or a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
tgainst evidence. Their Lordships adjourned the hear-
ing to this day, when Mr. Thomas proceeded with the
application.
The verdict was for the defendant upon the first plea.
which was, that the agreement was a forgery. The jury
were, as plaintiff contended, governed in this finding by
the evidence of several engravers, who swore that certain
signatures must have been forgeries, on account of their
exact similitude, the witnesses believing, from their long
-xperience, that no person, repeating his signature bona
tide, and without any designed imitation, would produce
autographs so perfectly alike. He was now prepared with
counter affidavits from other engravers, accompanied
with numerous autograph signatures and addresses
from letters and envelopes received by the plaintiff prior
o the action, some of them being from parties opposed
to him in this cause. These autographs were verified by
the post-marks.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the signa-
tures were not the only grounds uponwhich the jury rested
heir verdict. But the evidence was too long for him to
over now upon his nntes, the trial having occupied
two days.
Mr. Thomas said that he was prepared with evidence,
locumentary and otherwise• to rebut all the other material
.vidence for the defence. He then went into a length-
ened detail of the transactions between him, and the
defendant from their first introduction to the rupture
between them. The chief points were, that the plaintiff
was engaged by Mr. Dunn as his agent to contract for
the construction of the building for the Chinese Collec-
ion, and to obtain certain leases, includirg the lease of
the ground (on which the building now stands), and that
of an adjacent cottage. On condition of his executing
these agencies to the satisfaction of the defendant
he was to receive the sum of six guineas a week.
as long as the rents of the exhibition would
produce that sum. Towards the close of November,
1842, he received notice from Mr. Dunn that his engage-
ment should terminate on the 31st of the ensuing
December. In the course of a correspondence which
then commenced between the plaintiff and Mr. M.Turner,
the defendant's attorney, the latter stated that Mr. Dunn
had no recollection of signing the agreement, and that
it must be a forgery. Subsequently Mr. Dunn made an
affidavit to the effect that the signature was a forgery ;
but afterwards he stated that he had no recol-
lection of making the affidavit, and that he
was under the influence of opium when he was sworn to
it. The plaintiff went into a detail of correspondence
and transactions to show that the agreement had been
entered into. He also, at great length, explained cer-
tain discrepancies between the case which he set up in
Chancery and that which was tried here, and which ap-
parent discrepancies had, he said, erroneously influenced
the jury.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the jury
were influenced by the fact that in September, 1842, the
plaintiff was negotiating with Captain Sibon, the pro-
prietor of the Waterloo Model, for an engagement at six
guineas a week to superintend that exhibition. This ne-
gotiation appeared to the jury to be incompatible with
the existence of such an agreement as the plaintiff in •
sisted upon.
•Mr. Thomas said that he was prepared with proof
which had not gone to the jury, to show that this was a
negotiation for the renewal of an engagement, which he
had before held for nine months, concurrently with that
in Mr. Dunn's establishment, and with the full know-
ledge of both parties. He had been five years in the
service of Captain Sibon, without a constant or regular
personal attendance at the exhibition being either ne-
cessary or required by his employer. It was known to
Mr. Dunn and Capt. Sibon, that he could and did effec-
tively manage the two establishments.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE reminded Mr. Thomas,
that after having received notice of discharge from Mr.
Dunn, he wrote a letter, which was interpreted by the
jury into an admission that th• defendant had the power
to terminate the engagement upon a month's notice.
Mr. Thomas said, that at the time he was not resolved
to press the agreement to a suit at law ; but when the
imputation of forgery was cast upon him, he was con-
vinced that a settlement by arbitration would not be
enough to vindicate his character. Therefore he brought
this action, and was resolved, with their Lordships' per-
mission, to persevere in it.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said that the Court could only
decide according to what had appeared on the trial, and
what might now be presented upon affidavit. They could
not act upon Mr. Thomas's statements, as to what he
might expect to prove upon a new trial.
The plaintiff put in an affidavit, directly contra-
dicting the evidence of one of the principal witnesses
for the defence, and concluded a speech of nearly an
hour's duration, by an able review of the whole case,
and imploring the Court to give him the opportunity
of disproving the charge of perjury which had been
set up against him.
The COURT would look into the affidavits, and the
evidence given on the trial, before they would deter-
mine whether or not a rule to show cause should be
granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ESDAILE V. LUND.

This action was tried at the London sitting after last
tern, when a verdict was entered for the plaintiff on
one issue, and for the defendant on the other.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a rule nisi, call-
in; on the defendant to show cause why the verdict
Should not be entered for the plaintiff on the second
issue, or for a new trial, in consequence of misdirection,
and the verdict being contrary to evidence. A scire
facias was issued against the defendant Lund as a share-
holder in the Yorkshire Agricultural and Commercial
Banking Company, upon a judgment obtained against
the public officer of that Company, under the provisions
of the 7th Geo. IV., and in favour of the London and
Westminster Banking Company. The first plea upon
which issue was joined was a plea that the judgment was
fraudulently and collusively given, to enable the York-
shire Bank to recover a call of 3/. per share from the
plaintiff. Upon this plea the verdict was given for the
plaintiff. The second plea was that a writ of scire facies
was issued against a person named Tomlinson, another
shareholder of this Banking Company, that the plaintiff
obtained judgment and took him in execution, and that,
with the consent and under the direction and authority
of the plaintiff, Tomlinson was discharged out of the
sheriff's custody, whereby i t was averred the debt due from
the defendant was satisfied. The defendant called a person
named Ackland, a sheriff's officer, who proved the arrest
and the discharge. Several writs were inclosed in a letter
to Ackland from Messrs. Roy, Blunt, and Co. the soli-
citors to the London and Westminster Banking Com-
pany, and he was directed to apply to Mr. Seymour, a
solicitor in York, who would inform him as to the per-
sons of the various defendants. Mr. Tomlinson, whose
individual debt was 881. 65., was released on paying that
amount ; and the writ being endorsed 20,0001., the de-
fer.dant pleaded this discharge in his second plea as a
satisfaction of the writ for 20,0601 against all the share-
holders. The Learned Counsel contended that the
parties in York did not act under any proper authority
from Messrs. Roy, Blunt, and Co., the solicitors to the
London and Westminster Banking Company, and was
proceeding to argue that there was no legal stay of pro-
ceedings against the shareholders generally, when he
was interrupted by the Court, directing him to take a
rule for a new trial.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov.
(Before Mr. Cororruis6ion GOULBURN.)
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT BANNISTER, DRAPER, OF

PORTSEA.
The bankrupt, whose examination hy Mr. E. James
we gave at length in our yesterday's paper, was this
3av brought up for re-examination, and when asked
if he wished to add anything to his statement respect-
ing Williams, said that he had gone that morning up
to Oxford-street, and at the Boar and Castle recog-
nised the same waiter, who distinctly recollected
seeing him (the bankrupt) there with another person,
and that person afterwards taking away goods from
the room they occupied. The waiter was then in
Court, if his Honour would examine him.
Mr. E. JAMES submitted that on the face of that
case the answers of the bankrupt had not been satis-
factory, and that therefore his Honour, in the exercise
of his duty, should give him into the custody of a
messenger of that Court. He thought that on looking
at the whole of the examination the story bore inter-
nal evidence of having been fictitiously concocted,
and he (Mr. James) was as certain that the person