The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-18 00:00:00

considerable portion of the work after the 27th Septem-
ber, 1549, to the extent of between 20,000/. and CO.OOO/.;
and wilt n the works vete finally completoi the con-
tractors sent in all thei r cleires, from the cement neereent
of the contract down to the completion of the works.
The award of their engineer adjudged that there
was justly due and ovine from the Sunderland Dock
Company to the centre eters the sum te 4.4221. 16e. in
respect of their contras re the erbitretor haying d, ducted
the sum of 14,768!. is r re,pect of breack:e:, of contract
committed by the coal ractors. There were twelve üb-
jections token by the ,le!ers. Craven ti the award, six
of which were substant icily that the arbitrator had ex-
ceeded his authority in allowing counter-claims on
behalf of the cox apany, and the seventh and
principal objection was that the arbitrator
hurl allowed the demands of the contractors
for work done after the 27th September, 1849, when the
supplemental deed was made. A further objection was,
that the award was netspe under the original articles of
agreement, whereas there was no submission under the
original articles.
Mr. W. H. WATsoen, Q.C., (with whom was Mr. D.
Seymour) this morning showed cause against the rule
on the part of the S und,rhind Dock Company. Ia
answer to the el, lection that the arbitrator
had adjudicated upon claims sent in by the con-
tractors in respect of work done after the
27th September, 1849, the fact was that Messrs. Craven
never sent into the cot tp.tny any claim up to that date;
but when the works w ere finished they sent in all their
claims for work done from the commencerne.et of the
contract down to the completion of the work. The bill
of claims sent in by the contractors did not distinguish
between the work done before the 27th September, 1849;
and that which was -,done afterwards. There was an
agreement by parole between the perlies, and the
Messrs. Craven having sent in claims subse-
quently to the 27th September, 1849, they could
not move to set aside eh is award, because the submission
was partly under the supplemental agreement and partly
by parole. The Goers 'could only deal with an award so
far as the submission was made a rule of court; they
could not deal with it ethers it was partly by parole and
partly by rule of court. He (Mr. Watson) also con-
tended that the award et sold not be set aside, because the
agreement for the awar6 wait wholly independent of the
submission to arbitration. The 11th objection was, that
the award was bad, as profwssedly one and innivisibie;
but he submitted that objection was untenable, there
being one contract governing the whole time, and all
the claims under that ecto:ract having been sent in, and
the arbitrator having eeetermined on finding whet sum
was due to the contractors, which was the result of the
whole matters in di-puts between them.
Mr. DecnY SEven.ana, on the same side, contended
that the wording of the last clau.e of the original
agreement was sufficient to cover anything that had
been dune by the arbitrator.
Sir F. THEsioEa (with whom was Mr. Atherton)
on b,,half of the contractors, contended that the award
proceeded entirely ore the supplements.' ugreetnent,
which was wrong.
The Court discharged the rule without giving any
opinion as to the le, iilete o the ewerd.

EXCHEQUER.---(THIS DAY.)
(Sittit gs in Banco.)
Their Lordships took ;be special paper to-day, but, no
case involving any questii,n of general importatlce, was
hew d during the inornizz.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall before Mr. Baron
MARTIN altd a Common Jury.)
DALE V. CLEGHORN.

This was an action on trespass to rccover compensa-
tion in damages fir an assault.
Mr. Bramwell conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr.
Humfrey appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an e;derly gentleman, and a clerk in
a mercantile house, and the defendant, who is much
younger in years, carries on the business of a merchant
in Billiter-lane. It appeared that the plaintiff, who ries
accompanied by his two daughters, and five more young
ladies, was waiting on the 6th cf July last,
about in the evening, at the Angel Inn,
Islington, for the purpose of procuring an omnibus
to Hackney. When an omnibus arrived be fouud there
was sufficient room inside fur the party, and having en-
gaged their places, they were about to enter, whim the
defendant insisted on having a sect before them. The
plaintiff remonstrated with him on his conduct, where-
upon he gave the plaintiff a blow which knocked him
down.
For the defence it was costeuded that the action was
a vexatious one, the plaintiff having given the defendant
no opportunity of offering au apology.
Mr. Baron MARTIN told the jury they must find a
verdict for the plaintiff, but he thought it was only
proper that the plaintiff. should at least have enabled the
defendant to apologize before he resorted to the expense
of a lawsuit.

Verdict, for plaintiff, damages 40s.
This finished the business at the present sitting.

BAIL COURT.-' (THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
GARDENER P. DAVEY.
Mr. COLLIER applied for a rule calling upon the in-
formant in this case to show cause why the rule for an
information in the nature of a quo warranto should not
be rescinded, and the defendant reimbursed his costs and
charges. Last year Mr. Davey and another gentleman
were candidates to represent one of the Exeter wards in
the Exeter town-council, but the votes on either side
being equal, the assessors gave their casting-vote in
favour of Mr. Davey, and he was returned as the suc-
cessful candidate. It was afterwards discovered, how-
ever, that one of the burgesses named Couch had polled
in the name of Crouch, and a rule for a quo warranto
was obtained, calling upon Mr. Davey to show by what
right he claimed the seat. That rule came on for argu-
ment some nine months ago, and the Court directed that
the matter should go before a jury upon the informant
putting in security for costs. The informant being a
needy man, bad hitherto been unable to comply with
this condition, and although two assizes had been held
in Exeter the question in dispute had not been
carried before a jury, nor was it likely that it ever
would. Still, while this rule was hanging over his head
Mr. Davey would not be permitted to take his seat in
the council chamber, and he therefore prayed the inter-
ference of the Court in the manner already mentioned.
Mr. Justice YATTESON asked if there was any prece-
dent for a motion like this.
Mr. COLLIER was nct aware that there was any direct
precedent, but there were cases in the books which by
analogy bore upon the motion. For instance, the Court
had frequently laid down the doctrine, that where a new
trial was ordered on the performance of a certain con-
dition, and the condition was not complied with within
a reasonable time, the rule could be rescinded with costs.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said it never could have been
intended that the informant could keep the rule alive for
ever, and he should therefore grant the application.
Rule nisi accordinv iv.

TilE SUN,