The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-13 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.--('PHIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before the LORD CHIEF B.knoN and
Special Juries.)
GREEN V. PRICE.

This was an action of covenant to recover the sum of 5,000/.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Jones and Mr. Cowley for the defendant.

The agreement which formed the, iiound of the present
action was made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff,
who, after retiring from the business of a perfumer bound
himself in the above sum not to set up again within a certain
distance of London. The plaintiff having, as it appeared,
succeeded the defendant in his perfumery establishment in
Lsmbard-street, the defendant was alleged to have broken
this agreement, and he was now sued for the penalty.
It was contended on behalf of the defendant that no specific
loss to the plaintiff had been shown to have resulted from his
recommencing business, and also that he was not within the
distance named. Proceedings were taken in the case last
term, when, in virtue of the decision in the case of Malian
V. May, where it was held that the word " London," when
unqualified, did not include Westminster, the Court ordered
the plea of distance to be corrected.

Shortly after the opening of the plaintiff's case, his Lord•
ship stated it to be his opinion that this question was one of
law.

It was then agreed that Mr. Jervis should tender a bill of
exceptions to his Lordship's ruling, and that, in the mean-
time, a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff accordingly—Damages, 5,0001.
LAWRENCE V. CLARK.

This was an action to recover 200/. on a bill of exchange.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Chambers appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. James and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.

The ground of action arose of a gambling transaction of
Lord Waldegrave. His Lordship, it appeared, had lost the
sum of three thousand pounds at a gambling-house in
Regent-street, called the Strangers' Club, which was kept
by a person named Russell. This took place in the year
1842. For the debt thus contracted, he gave I. 0. U.'s
amounting to 3,0001. Mr. Russell, having taken these
I. 0. U.'s, applied to the defendant, who resides at Thistle-
grove, Bro►npton, to purchase them of him, assuring him, at
the same time, that they had not been won at gambling, and
also telling him that he was in negotiation with Mr. Bevan,
the attorney of Lord Waldegrave, for the settlement of the
debt. The defendant gave Mr. Riissell several bills in con-
sideration of these I. 0. U.'s. The one now under the consi-
deration of the Court found its way into the hands of Mr.
Lawrence, a horse-dealer and bill discounter, in Oxford-
street, who now sued the defendant upon it.
The action was resisted by the defendant on the ground
that the I 0 U's had been obtained by gambling, and that
the bills were handed over to the plaintiff without conside-
ration, and merely for the purpose of the action. The de-
fendant had put 4x pleas on the record, and the affirmative
of issue resting with him, the defendant's case, contrary to the
usual course, was first gone into.
While the defendant's case was proceeding, an application
was made to the Court by Mr. James, for leave to apply to
the Court next term to amend the first plea for the purpose
of having a new trial, the notice for the production of the
bills being insufficient.—The application was acceded to.
A verdict was then given for the plaintiff for 212/. 10s.,
121. 10s. being the amount duo for interest.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
Their Lordships, this day, gave judgment in six out of
nine remanet cases, allowing three to stand over.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL
and a Special Jury).
PATTERSON V. HOLLAND AND OTHERS.

This was an action for the infringement of a patent for the
prevention of the oxidation, or rusting of iron, by means of a
coating of zinc. The plaintiff's case was not concluded when
we went to press.