The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-04 00:00:00

COURT OF REVIEW-(THIS DAY

His HoNoun sat to-day in Bankruptcy as Chief Judie
of the. Court of Review, and disposed of bankrupt
petitions.
His Horiouft afterwards in Equity took the motion in
the case of " Alalines v. Price," part heard. It is a
motion to extend an undertaking that had been given by
the defendants ; and if they refused that they might be
restrained by an injunction of the Court from working
their mines according to the.system of " patching."

QUEEN'S BENCH.-( THIS DAT.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Common Jury.)
' - BIGG AND OTHERS V. WORKMAN.

This was an action brought by Messrs. Bigg and Son,
the stationers of Parliament-street, to recover an amount
of 1351. 9.3. for work and labour done. The defendant
pleaded.that there were others indebted with him, whose
names were set forth in the pleadings, and who ought to
be sued with him.

Mr. Whately and Mr. Huggins appeared for the plain,
tiffs, and Mr. Knowles for, the defendant.

It appeared that, towards the latter girt of 1841, or
the beginning of 1842, an attempt was made to establish
a joint-stock company, to be called the London and
Westminster Metropolitan Water Company, of which
the defendant was one of the directors. The plaintiff
had been employed to print prospectuses, &c., and they
had brought an action against defendant for the whole
amount. The defence was that the defendant was not
solely liable, and witnesses were called to prove that the
persons named in the plea, viz., the rest of the directors,
were jointly liable with him. Lord Denman, however,
was of opinion that the proof of the plea failed, and the
jury, found for plaintiff—Damages, 135/. 9s.
Before sitting at Nisi Prius this morning, the Court
gave judgment in the case, expiate Partington, a writ of
habeas corpus which had been moved , for during the
term in the Bail Court. The circumstances of the case
were fully reported at the time. The judgment of the
Court this morning was, that the defendant should be
remanded back to hi-s original custody.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Lord CHIEF BARON ands Special Jury.)
FRAUD ON THU REVENUE-:—THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
V. NEVILLE.
Mr. JERVIS (in the absence of the Solicitor-General),
'stated that this was an information filed at the instance
of the Attorney-General, to recover penalties from the
defendant, for importing spirits without making a due
entry and pitying the usual duties required by law. An
arrangement had been agreed to between himself, as
representative of the Crown, and Mr. Wordsworth as
counsel for the defendant, which would save the Court
a great deal of trouble. At the same time, in order to
afford a warning to the public, he felt it was his duty to
state a few of the reasont.-Which had induced the At-
torney-General :to file the present information. The
defendant Neville was, during the past year, first mate
on board the lAth, a steam-vessel belonging to the
General Steam Navigation Company, and plying between
London and Scotland. 'The difference in the amount of
duty payable on spirits manufactured in England, Scot-
land, and Ireland, afforded great temptation to persons
who were engaged in the coasting trade of the country.
Un _ British spirits the duty was 7s. 10d. per
gallon ; on Scotch spirits of a light quality
3s. Bd. ; and for the :protection of the revenue.
besides. Other regulations required by the Excise and
Customs' departments, it was necessary that all spirits
conveyed by coasting-vessels, should be entered on the
ship's manifest. Each of these several provisions had
been violated in the present-instance, by the defendants.
The specific offence for ivhich a penalty was now to be
taken by consent, was committed on the 26th of De-
cember, 1843, when the defehdant, as chief mate, com-
municated to the officer on board the vessel, then lying
at Leith, that he was going into the town to order spirits.
Twelve gallons of spirits were sent on board ; but they
wero stowed away, under-'the. defendant's direction, in
such a manner as to escape observation. On the arrival
of the vessel at Brown's-wharf,. London, in consequence
of information received by the authorities, a minute
search was made by the officers, and near to the paddle
boxes a quantity of spirits was found stowed away.
Those Spirits belonged to the crew. The vessel was
seized;- but the defendant had the spirits entered on the
ship's manifest, for the. purpose of protection. At
that' time the' defendant's own spirits had not
been discovered. The vessel proceeded on her outward
voyage, and when she had arrived off Gravesend, the
Pdiscovered, arranged in such a manner as
clearly waslypr
ovedtbaiitwas intended to be " run" on shore.
Under these circumstances proceedings were instituted
by the Crown. The defendant had now agreed that a
verdict should be given against him for one .penalty,
which verdict the jury would then have to return.
Mr. WORDSWORTH, for the defendant--It is true that
we have consented to a verdict for one penalty ; but on
the part of my client I feel it to be my duty to state that
he does not at all acquiesce-in the truth of the statement
made by my Learned Friend. So far, indeed, from it.
Mr. JEnvis (proceeding to open his brief)—The case
must go, then, to the jury. The Crown.cannot possibly
take the verdict if the defendant be not guilty.
Mr. WORDSWORTH—We have agreed to a verdict, but
we certainly.do not acquiesce in your statement of facts.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—It is, I think, greatly to
be lamented that any supposed state of facts has been
meuebnmtimilttesdt,
hifatvhe a ectaesnd
eiesnsc Mill illtotoepmrbocaerrec:s,sfothre jsuuchrya. stlatdeo-
not know (addressing Mr. Wordsworth) whether you
mean to,
d.en, that there has been a breach of the re-
venue

Mr. WORDSWORTY—By no moans, my Lord.
Mr. JERVIS—The case must go on. if nut guilty, why
should you pay a penalty ?
The Loan CHIEF' BARON—Your agreeing to a verdict
and a penalty ought to import a breach of the revenue
laws. I did not understand Mr. Jervis to state anything

more.
Mr. JERTIS—I shall go on.
Mr. WORDSWORTH—There is no occasion. If my
Lord understood your statement only to import what his
Lordship states, we are satisfied.
The LORD CIIIEY BARON (very emphatically)—l trust
the misfortune which has occurred to the administration
of justice to-day by this misunderstanding will never
occur again.
The jury then returned a verdict for the Crown, with
one penalty. Verdict accordingly.
IMPORTANT ♦RRANGEMENT.
In the course of the morning, the Lord Chief Baron
took an opportunity of informing the Bar that ho had
determined no common jury cases should in future be
set doWn for hearing in the same paper, and on the same
day, as special jury ones. This new arrangement might
perhaps cause, here and there, a part of a day to be a
void ; but this he looked upon as a less evil than the
present one, which detained suitors and witnesses from
day to day at great inconvenience and enormous expense,
and which frequently was a source also of great embar-
rassment to counsel. Henceforward, then, common
juries should have days to themselves, and special juries
days to themselves. The prevailing system had afforded
grounds of just complaint ever since the time of Lord
Ellenborough, and he felt it his duty to the public and
the Bar to provide a remedy for it.
Mr. Jervis, Mr. Martin, Mr. Humphrey, and other
members of the bar, severally intimated their approval
of this new arrangement, which would be alik( a great
savirg to the public, and a great convenience to the bar.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
BENTLEY V. CARVER.
This was an action for an infringement of a patent,
and the only matter of interest involved in it was the

manner in which the plaintiffs became possessed of the
patent alleged to be infringed. It appeared that Mr.
William Thornton Car formerly kept a mill at Black-
heath, where he carried on experiments in the improve-
ment or carding machines. In 1841 he invented en ap-
paratus for card setting, and obtained the patent in ques-
tion. Having borrowed a sum of money and deposited
the patent as security for repayment in a given time, he
was unable to pay at the expiration of that period, and
consequently the patent was forfeited. The trial will
occupy more than one day.