The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-19 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

/
THE REGISTRATIONS.
the Mcuro.
rt
ton
Sergeantiie Irit
in K
o theA listn made n
an application to
al, which, as we
understood, had been omitted, in consequence of delay
N La
appeal,
ppe
in receiving the statement of the Revising-Barrister.
s Barrister.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL was instructed to oppose
the'application, but
The COURT considered that it had no jurisdiction
in the case, and that the application, which came too
late, must be refused.
The rest of the morning was occupied with mo-
tions, of no general interest.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff KENNEDY and a Common
Jury.)
BAINES V. BAINES...-LORD BROUGHAM'S ACT.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered,
and for money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
A solicitor conducted the case for the plaintiff. The
action was undefended. In September last year the
, defendant, who was a bookseller carrying on business
in the vicinity of Covent-garden market, purchased
from the plaintiff, also a bookseller in St. James's-
square, Clerkenwell, a quantity of manuscript ser-
mons, for which he agreed to pay 51. Subsequently
he borrowed 51. from the plaintiff, for which he gave
him an I. 0. U. The defendant had pleaded that he
never was indebted to the plaintiff in the sums speci-
fied, and had paid 7s. into Court, at the same time
pleading that the plaintiff had not sustained any loss
or injury beyond that sum.
The solicitor said, that through Lord Brougham's
Act the plaintiff had been driven into that Court, and
added that since the commencement of the action the
defendant had sold all his goods, and the plaintiff
would therefore have to whistle for his money.
The plantiff's daughter proved the delivery of the
MS., and the lending of the 51., and the jury accord-
ingly gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 101.

ECKFORD V. HORNE.
This was an action for work and labour rendered
by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The plaintiff is a painter and decorator, and the
defendant, some time ago, invented an improved kind
of horse shoe, intended to prevent horses slipping on
the wood pavement, for which he obtained a patent,
and commenced shoeing horses, on his improved prin-
ciple, in the neighbourhood of Woodstock-square.
The defendant, for the purpose of advertising his
patent, employed the plaintiff to paint a signboard of
extraordinary description, between twelve :and six-
teen feet long, descriptive of his invention. It
was, also, a most expensive article ; from
its being deeply gilt and decorated in the style
known as that of Louis XIV., and was more suited
for a drawing-room than for the foggy atmosphere of
the London streets. The sum charged for the sign-
board was 551., a portion of which had been paid, and
the action was for the balance. The defendant, it ap-
peared, was perfectly satisfied with the work. The
action, like the last, was undefended, and the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff.

ARCHES' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
IN THE MATTER OF THE EARL AND COUNTESS OP

DYSA RT.—JUDGMENT.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON proceeded this morning to give
judgment in this important case. The suit was
originally instituted by the Earl of Dysart to enforce
the Countess to return to his house, his real object, as
stated by his counsel, being to protect himself against
any liabilities incurred by the Countess as his wife.
She petitioned, and in her pleadings stated that from
his former cruelty she was now afraid to resume her
conjugal duties, lest she should again be subject to
personal violence.