The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 4.

(Sittings after Term, before the Loii) CHIEF BARON and
Common Jury.)
THORNETT V. HALES.

This was an action of debt for money had and received, to
which the defendant bad pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Sergeant Bvles and Mr. Wordsworth appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. hurnphreys for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a publican living at Wells-row, High-
bury, near Islington, and the defendant, the auctioneer of
38, Moorgate-street.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 3151. for
money received by the defendant, under the following cir-
cumstances :—On the 7th of July, in the present
year, the defendant, who had been retained for the
purpose by Mr. Walker, the proprietor of the Coach and
Horses, public-house at Chelsea, put up for sale by public
auction, at Garraway's, the lease and goodwill in trade of
a public-house, called the Bell, wine-vaults, in Shoreditch.
The house was bought at the sale by Mr. Thornett, the
plaintiff, for the sum of 1,575/., and he paid
to the defendant as a deposit 3151., subsequently signing an
agreement to complete the purchase in the usual way. In
due course the abstract of title was delivered to the plaintiff's
attorney, but having ascertained that Mr. Walker, the owner
of the property, had employed puffing bidders at the sale, the
plaintiff determined upon repudiating the sale, on the ground
of fraud. He therefore instructed his solicitor to apply to the
defendant to return the deposit money, but the defendant
refused to do so, and hence the origin of the present action.
Evidence having been adduced to prove these facts,
Mr. HUMEIIREYS contended that there had been no fraud
committed, either by the defendant or by bis client, Mr.
Walker, and in equity, if not in law, the plaintiff could be
compelled to complete the purchase. He admitted that a
party named Robinson, the proprietor of the Cock and Punch-
bowl public-house, in the City, and Mr. Fry, the solicitor,
had bid for the lease—the first 1,205/., and the second 1,200/. ;
but they did so in a bona fide and legitimate manner, and
without any fraud or collusion with the defendant.
The LORD CIIIEF BARON said the vendor of a property
had a right to employ puffing bidders to prevent the property
going under a certain sum, but the vendor was bound to
make that fact known to the parties at the sale, in order that
they might be on their guard, and watch and judge for them-
selves, that they did not bid for the property beyond its
actual value. If such notice were not given by the vendor,
the sale became null and void.

Mr. HustrxurYs urged that the sale was conducted in the
ordinary way, and all the bids were bona fide made.
The LORD CHIEF BARON suggested that the parties had
better consent to take a verdict for the plaintiff, reserving
leave to move to enter a nonsuit. This would bring
the question before the Court, and then it might be satisfac-
torily settled.
Mr. HumprutEts—Supposing the Court should be of
opinion that this is not such an interference with the ordi-
nary course of auction as to make the sale void, the plaintiff
will of course be nonsuited. For my part, I believe it is a
universal practice to have bidders of this sort ,present, and
the plaintiff must have been aware of it. At all events, I
shall contend that the fact that such a universal practice
existed was a sufficient notice to the plaintiff that these bid-
ders would be present.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought it required a special
notice, but this would be for the full Court to decide.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said of course he could have no ob-
jection to his Lordship's suggestion.
A verdict was therefore recorded for the plaintiff for 3151,
leave being given to the defendant to move to enter a non-
suit.

DECEMBER 4.
The Court sat at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, and having tried
several cases of no public interest, adjourned at half-past
twelve o'clock.

ARCHES' COURT, Dec. 3.
(Before Sir H. JENNER FUST.)

JUDGMENT.-THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE

BISHOP OF LINCOLN v. TIIE REV. JOHN DAY.

This was a_proceeding by letters
.of requeit, agleinst ths•
Rev.. 'Tohn bay, clerk; rector of the rectory of Hawriggs,
for the reformat-1W of his 'banners and excessee; The suit.
was in pursuance of the provisions of the Chinch
Act, and as-it has proceeded, throughout in'Veenam (the• rev.
defendant not:having appeared to the citatton),, the articles
exhibited] were, -On„,a
,preNictui court-flay, :read: sealatim,:aei
well as the evidence brought forrard in support ,of them.
Counsel were then hearcl,.?n 43ipport of the validity,,of the.
nhargeel, 'and; Itsiot4l 51,epnYtt;on of the hying etvoyed by
Mr. Day Wasitiketli'oi, the
.Court took time to consi4ef.the,
case in oxtenso. ' ,• , , ,
The principal artioles'exbibited against the Rey. Kr. Pay.
were to tint folidwing
" We article and object to you- the said-Win. Day, that at'.
all times in and during two years previous to the commence-
ment of this suit (save from on or about the 7th day of July,
1843, to the 9th Mar,c4.;1814) during which time you were
a prisoner in her' lylvesty,'s
,gnol at Aylesbury, in the county,
of Buckinghamshire, yetk,lta.ve. addicted yourself to habitual
excesses.
dAlsa we 'aiikte 'Object:76 . you, the said
that there did siist donCeiffing Sou scandal and evil 'report,
as having offended hgeihst ' the eCclesitisfical, In the
several matters hereinbefore particularly articled, objected,
and set forth against you. And we further article
and object to you that by reason, and in con-
sequence of such scandal and evil report, and under and by
virtue of an Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 3d
and 4th years of the reign of her present Majesty, entitled
An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline,' the
Lord Bishop of Lincoln did think fit of his own mere motion
to issue a commission under his hand and seal, bearing date
the 14th day of September, 1844, to five persons, one of
whom was the Rev. John Rd. Clerk, Vicar of Ivanhoe, in
the said county of Buckingham and diocese of Lincoln, and
a rural Dean within the said diocese, for the purpose of
making inquiry as to the grounds of such scandal and evil re-
port concerning you, as having offended against the laws ec-
clesiastical by having addicted yourself to habitual excesses.
That when such proceedings had been closed, one of the said
Commissioners, after due consideration of the depositions
taken before them, openly and publicly declared the unani-
mous opinion of the said Commissioners, that there was suf-
ficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceed-
ings; that the said Commissioners transmitted to the said
Bishop, under their hands and seals, the depositions of the
witnesses taken before them ' • and also a report of the una-
nimous opinion of the said five Commissioners, that there
were sufficient prima facie grounds for instituting further
proceedings against you, and that such report is filed in the
registry of the said diocese of Lincoln."
There were other articles. The concluding ones prayed
that the said William Day be duly and canonically corrected
and punished according to the exigency of the law, and
also be condemned in the costs of this suit.

Sir H. JENNER Fus'r, at very considerable length, ex-
pressed his opinion upon the case. The articles exhibited
were referred to by the Judge, and he held that the mate-
rial charges were proved. Referring to previous eases of
the kind, and cited in argument, he (Sir 11. J. Fust) was not
disposed to hold that this was a proceeding in which depri-
vation was called for. The Court thought, however, that a
suspension of three years from the emoluments of the living
would be sufficient.

The sentence of three years' deprivation, with costs, was
ordered to be entered in the registry.

CODRT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FoNerdorgis.)
IN RE.PRANCIS COPLAND, AN INSOLVENT.

The insolvent in this case, who was better known as Col.
Copland, and who was some time since deeply mixed up in
the affairs of Margaret Edmonds, of St. James's-place, and
Lord Huntingtower, came up to-day for his final order.
Mr. JAMES, who with Mr. Sturgeon appeared for the in-
solvent, said that a difficulty arose upon the last appearance
of the bankrupt before the Court, inasmuch as the certificate
of a former bankruptcy of Colonel Copland was not produced.
It was then held by an attorney who had a lien upon it, but
had since been given up, and thereby obviated tho opposition
then raised by Mr. Vallanee against the insolvent.
Mr. VarLaxcE said that he had certainly opposed the in-
solvent upon his lastappearance before the Court, both in rela-
tion to his " conimissiou, and the evidence which he had
given under the bankruptcy of Lord Huntingtower, which he
then disbelieved, but which subsequent explanations from the
Colonel induced him (Mr. Valiance) to believe to hays been