The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-12 00:00:00

THE LIEUTENI.NT-GOVERNOR OF GUERNSEY.

Their Lordships proceeded with the further consi-
deration of the petitions of the bailiff and jurats of the
Royal Court of the Island of Guernsey, touching the
conduct of the Lieutenant-Governor of that island.
Mr. S. WORTLEY resumed, and concluded his address
on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr. ROEBUCK then proceeded to address their Lord-
ships on behalf of the Crown, and had net concluded
when our reporter left.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at the Guildhall at Nisi Prius, before Lord
Dzmicart and London Special Juries.)
This was the first day of taking special jury cases in
the City of London. The Court was occupied the whole
morning in trying an uninteresting case relating to the
non-delivery of some hops. The case of the Queen v.
Douglas, which was expected to come on during the
present sittings, is postponed until the sittings after next
term, in consequence of the unavoidable abscise.) of Mr.
Kelly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY

PERRY V. PEACOCK.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover the sum of
201. for goods bargained and sold, and for goods sold and
delivered. The defendant paid 101. into Court.
It appeared that in February last the plaintiff sold to
defendant a quantity of shop fixtures, including a bin,
counter, together with weights and measures, some
of which were removed by defendant, and some left in
plaintiff's hands, those removed coming under the deno-
mination of goods sold and delivered, and those left, un-
der the denomination of goods bargained and sold. It
was proved that on the day on which the goods were
soli defendant offered plaintiff 18/. for them. After that
plaintiff said that he was anxious that no mistake should be
made concerning the price of the goods, and he used the
words, " I have this day sold to you a quanttty of fix-
tures for twenty pounds," to which defendant made so
reply. Defendant has often been requested to remove
the goods which had been left on plaintiff's premises, to
which he always replied that he did not want them at
present.
Mr. PEARSON, who appeared for defendant, said that,
in his opinion, the plaintiff had made out bet a very poor
case. It was proved and admitted that certain fixtures
bad been sold by plaintiff to defendant, but what was the
value of those goods had not bees proved. Now he (Mr.
' Pearson) would undertake to prove, by the evidence of
two experienced brokers, that the goods were not worth
more than 101., which sum had been paid into Court by
defendant.
Mr. Cook and Mr. Gardner, the two brokers alluded
to, proved that on the 30th of July last, defendant em-
fixtures
(pwlohyiect ftohreramedtoparmtaokfethaosevoalnuaatciocnounoft ocferwtahiinch the ac-
tion
87. al.
sssbrought) ; the valuation made by them
was
The jury, after some deliberation, found a verdict for
the plaintiff: They put the damages at 8/. on account
of defendant's admission that the goods were worth 181.,
10/. having been paid into Court.
The Court rose at half-past eleven o'clock.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
The cases heard this morning before the Hon. Com-
missioners were principally ilsolrencies from the country,
of no interest whatever.