The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INT ELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 11.
LORD NELSON 17. LORD BRIDPORT.
Mr. GARDNER I.r:slimed his arguments in this case,
hich occupied the whole day.

COUR7' OF QUEEA"S BENCH, .Dec. 11.
(Tiefere Mr. Justice WIGIIT3IAN rind a Special Jury.)

BRIsTOE v. PINNER. -
This was en action for an alleged illegal distress,
taken by the plaintiff against the defendant, who was
a §heriff's officer, upon the allegation that the plaintiff
did not owe any deist to the person named by the
defendant, and therefore resisted the distress.
Eildence was given to show, on behalf of
the plaintiff, that the goods on the premises
were his own property, and not the property of a person
natned Monyard,against whom the execution had issued.
It was contended by counsel for the defendant that
Monyard had made a collusive and fraudulent assign-
ment of his property in order to evade the distress.
Mr. Monyard was examined as to the nature of the
transactions upon which he made the assignment. In
his cross-examination he said he owed a debt on a bill of
exchange when he was makinc, arrangements to procure
money, " not to pay the bill, but to extend his business."
There were no witnesses examined for the defence.

MS LORDSHIP, in addressing the jury, said they
wou!d in this case have two questions to try ; one,
whether this was a good and valid assignment, and given
for a consideration ; and the second was, that if they
believed the transaction was a bona fide one, what
amount of injury the plaintiff had sustained. The
Learned Judge then recapitulated the evidence with
great care. . _

The case occupied the Court from its sitting to half-
past one o'clock, when the jury found for the plaintiff-
-1501. damages.

ROE V. THE MARQUIS OF WESTMEATH.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he was for the de-
fendant in this case, and it was likely to be one which
could not possibly be brought to a close to-day, and that
it would occupy the whole of to-morrow. Under these
circumstances, he hoped the case would not be called on,
as he would be obliged to be absent to-morrow and
Saturday.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL said he was prepared to pro-
ceed with the case, but he agreed with his Learned
Friend that it could not possibly be concluded to-day ;
at the same tinie he did expect that this, though a long
cause, should not he postponed for any other long cause.
The COURT—What is the cause of action ?
SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The obstruction of light in an
ancient building, my Lord.
The COURT—What is the next cause ?

et3IINSEL—The parties are Cullen v. Bushel, and the
cause of action is a malicious prosecution, which will
occupy a long time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had made an ar-
rangerne•-lt with the Court that the cause should not be
called on on Friday or Saturday, and if that an arrange-
ment had n_ ,t been made, he should have returned his
brief three days ago.
After a sh,,rt discussion it was agreed upon to post-
pone the cause, which was a special jury one, till the
sittings after term.

COURT OF COAT. ON PLEAS, Dec. 11.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special .Jury.)
THr. FISHMONGERS' COMPANY n. ROBINSON AND OTHERS.
This was an action for the penalty- upon a deed
of c)ntrmt fir tho drainage of lauds belonging to
tai:, piainttffs, adjoining the sea-lake called the Lough
Foyie, in the north of Ireland.
.1-he cauf.ti was tried before, and the plaintiff; obtained
a.'l' with Is. damages. the effect b9ing to enable
(11C)ree the otract and recover costs.
"1.1%,7 d 1 fendant si,lc9 obtained a rule for this new trial,
whi:b occupy at last ittr,ther day.
Jr. I. 1). Mr. S=.n-g:-.ant Channel!, and Mr.
13;:y le aprpare I for tha 11,in:ill's; Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fy,i..l, Mr... Crowder, Mr. Sergsant Murphy, Mr. Set.-
geact 111v;e,,, and Mr. Ilialmarsh, f the defendants.