The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, FEB. 23.
,MORRIS AND DprlS.
Mr. WHATELEY requested that the Lord Chan-
cellor would give his Judgment on the motion which
had been made before him for the new trial of the
issue in this cause. The parties were particularly
deilrous w know his Lordship's determination, as
'thgre were niany witnesses of an advanced 'age
whose testimony was material, and who might not
be able to attend if the trial were put off.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR would see the Learned
Judge who tried the cause, and confer with' him on
the subject before Friday next, and would imme-
diately afterwards pronounce his decision.

ROSS AND AGLIONEY.
The COWit'i was occupied the whole of the day
in hearing this appeal, The question as 'to the.
right of a party claiming under a grant from Henry
VIII. of a dissolved religious house and lands, to
receive such apportionment of tithes (if any) as the
prioress of the Black Nuns of Armathwaite was en-
titled to.
Judgment was postponed.

JACKSON. V. BOURNE.

Upon this case being called on,

Mr. KNIGHT requested that it might stand over till
Thursday next. The case bad originally been heard before
his Lordship at the Rolls, and it was the wish, therefore,
of the Learned Gentleman that one Counsel on a side
should only be heard. Mr. Sugden was his leader, and
as he would be able to argue the case much better than
he could, it was his wish it should stand over.

Mr. AGAR, who on was on the other side had tua objec-
tion, and
His LORDVHIP gave leave accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FHB.

GROOM V. DOWLAZID.
This was an action by, an attorney's clerk, to re-
cover a compensation in damages, for an injury he
had received, in consequence of having thrust his les.
into the hole in the public' footway, which was used,
by the defendant fOr the convenience of admitting
coals into his cellar, and *hick it was alleged; 'he
had neglected to-keep in a proper State of repair.
The Jury, after a short 'deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff--.-Daniage's

PALACE COURT, Az. 22.
COE V. REUBEN MARTIN.

Mr. FLANNAGAN stated the case. The plain-
tiff was a poor shoemaker, resident at Hamp-
stead. The defendant was the celebrated Reuben
Martin, upon whose fame and achievements it would
be equally idle to expatiate, as upon those of the
" Great Captain of the age" and present Prime Mi-
nister of England. It seems that being put some-
what out of sorts by an effort in his calling,—or pro-
bably labouring under the effects of intemperate in-
dulgence, after " a well-fought field,"—the defend-
ant, with the advice of his friends, determined on try-
ing those sovereign remedies air and exercise. Re-
course was had to medical authority, and the air of
Hampstead was prescribed by the doctor as best
calculated to restore the energies of Reuben. There
are few places in the country now, where a pugilist
does not stand a chance of meeting with a bird' of
the same feather. A friend of this kind (a Mi.
Pilch) introduced the .defendant to Mr: c'e`e; and it
was agreed that Reuben shoitht have' the rtin-Of his
house for 1/. lie. 6d. per*week. When- the bill for
the first week was presented, the defendant said
he would remain the whole month, and would
then discharge the total sum. The plaintiff was,
of course, quite pleased with this arrangement,
and on the strength of it, he paid H. for ac-
count of the defendant to a Mr. Buck, and 7s.,for
some trifling repairs made in his shoes. At the ter-
mination of the month the bill was sent in. The
defendant put it in his pocket, and said he would
call in a week with the money. A fortnight elapied,
and the pugilistic hero was not forthcoming; still
the poor shoemaker felt no miSgivings as to Reu-
ben's honour and solvency. In a
,short time after,.
however, the plaintiff called upon him for this moneyi
but the reply. which he received. /soon, Openett hie
ekes_ " Coe," (said this ornament of the ,ring)i
';I came to Hampstead flat-catehing,:and I caught.
you." Seeing. that it was vain any longer to ap-
peal to the honour and honesty of a prize fighter, the
plaintiff was obliged to have recourse to the present
action as his only remedy.
Evidence was then produced which fully sustained
the plaintiff's case.—The Jury found for the plain=
tiff—Damages 71. 14s.

LYON V. WHITNEY.

This was an action brought by the endorsee againsi
,the acceptor of a bill of exchange for 1W 10s.
The Jury, after some consideration,, returned a ver
diet for the defendant.