The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-30 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT, Jule 28.

His Lordship the Master of the Rolls did not sit today, in con-
sequence of having to attend in the Lord Chancslior's private room
at Westminsier, to hear the further arguments in the case of the
Hanover Crown jewels.

VICE-CI-lA%CELLORS' COURT, June 28.
the Vice-Chancellor of England took short causes and causes of
no general interest. . . _

The Vice-Chancellor Knigbt Bruce took causes, and the Vice-
Chancellor Wigram short causes, unopposed petitions, and peti-
tions on the general paper, none of which possessed any points of
interest, except to the parties concerne«,

COUR"! OF QUEBA'..s. BEivcri,ju,e 28

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and a

Special Jury.)
FIRTH V. RICHTER.

This part-heard case, which was noticed in yesterday's paper
was resumed this day.
Witnesses for the defence were called and examined by Mr.
BRANWICLL, with the purpose of showing that part of the claim
made by the plaintiff on the Phcenix Fire-office was founded in
fraud, and that, therefore, he had no right to any part of the in-
surance.

'BAP, C• ;CRT .1 ulle 28.
( Sittings in Banco. )
Lord Denman, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and Mr. Justice Wil-
liams mere the presiding judges.

COOYEK V. HARDING AND SMITH.

This was a motion on the part of the defendants fir a non
suit on a verdict for the defendants, on several grounds.
The short licts of the case are these a—Messrs. Harding and
Smith, the defendants, are solicitors, at Birmingham, and be-
came agent to the assignees of a batikrupt, named Guild, an
ironmonger at Stafford. The assignees were in litigation with
the plaintiff, Cooper, their former solicitor, in respect to some
trusts. The matter had been the subject of a suit in Chancery,
but thinking the suit would be brought to a more speedy ter-
mination, it was taken before Mr Daniels, Commissioner of
Bankruptey. The defendants being desirous of Mr. Cooper's
appearance before the Commissioner, served him with a sum-
mons to attend before the Court, but Mr Cooper, when the su n-
mons was tendered to him, refused to attend, unless his expenses
were paid as a witness. The defendants then applied to the
Commissi,ner for a warrant to compel his attendance, who
observed that if they had not done what was right regarding
the summons, they were not entitled to a warrant, owing to
the expenses not having been tendered ; but upon being pressed
the Commissioner said. that at their own peril, and upon their
own responsibilit), he would grant the warrant. The warrant
was accordingly taken out. Haddam, the officer of the Court,
put it into execution, and Mr. Cooper was brought in custody
before the Court. Mr. Cooper brought an action again 4 the
defendants for false imprisonment which was tried before Lord
Denman, and a verdict was had against them. Thereupon the
present proceedings ensued. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed
that the rule m:ght be discharged.
The defendant's plea was, first, that the plaintiff was sus-
pected by Mr. Commissioner Daniels ; and secondly, that he
was generally suspected for the act, and says that a witness is
not b.onnd to attend unless his expenses are paid, but in the ca4e
of suspected persons, postpones the question of expenses until
the suspected person be examined. The summons, however,
did not set forth any such suspicion, and the jury by their
verdict recognised the fact that the Commis,ioners did not
regard Air. D. Cooper as a suspected person. The summons
merely set forth that the solicitors for the assignees believed
Mr. Cooper to be a person who could give useful information
in the case, but the warrant recited that be was a person sus-
pected to be in possession of some of the bankrupts' goods.
Their Lordships took time to eonrider their judgment.

COURT OF Ci,MMOIV FLEAS. June 28.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL )
HOLCROFT V. HOGGINS AND OTHERS.

Mr. Serjr,aiit Morph), Mr. Si rjeant and
pppeared counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Serje,nt Talfourd and Mr. Lush for the defendants.
This was an action brought by Mr. Hotel, fr to rt -
cove,r frot the defet.dants, as registered proprietors of
the Newcastle 4clve,tiser, 1051 for a year's services in
supplying leading articles to that publication. It was in
June, 1844, that the plaintiff first write for this paper,
being engaged by a Mr. Lowkin as agent for the de-
.rendants, aial some months afterwards a contract was
entered into wi:h the plaintiff to writ, such articles from
November to November next. It was, however, sb:.wn
that the real contract was trona (7tiristmas. lti4-1 for a
year, The defendants remained registered proprietors
at the Stamp-office, and their names appearel as such at
the end of each number of the Newcastle ,id"e, tiser
down to the present time. It was, therefore, contended
that tilere could be no doubt the contract was made on
behalf of the defendants, and that they were liable in the
present Julien.
Evidence having been given of these facts, witnesses
were about to be called to prove the custom on other
papers, but the Learned Judge doubted the relevancy of
such testimony, and it was not continued.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, in addressing the jury, said
that the case on the part of the defence was, that the de-
fendants were not responsible in this action. They had
allowed their names to remain entered at the Stamp-
office as proprietors of the Newcastle (formerly the
Great Nootiterh) Adve,tiser, long after they had cett,ed
to have any connexion therewith. In October, 1843,
the defendants assigned the paper by a bill of sale by
way of mortgage to a Mr Netham ; and in the begin-
;ling of June last the defendants sold the paper to Mr.
Lox kin, who thus became the whole and sole proprietor
of the 'Newcastle Advertiser. The deeds of assignment
and sale, &c., were put in to prove these facts, and Mr.
Lowkin gave eviderce to establish his own sole responsi-
bility for the payment of the plaintiff, and to show that
the plaintiff had regarded him in that light.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY, in his reply, o intended
that the defendants' case was an attempt to shift the
responsibility from the real proprietors to one who
really was not liable, but who had engaged the plaintiff
merely as agent for the defendants.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury
retired to consider t..eir verdict, and after an absence
of half an hour, returned into court with one for the
defendants.

The Learned JUDGE reserved for the opinion of the
Court above the question, whether the stAtute did not
constitute an estoppel to the defenda'its' denying they
were proprietors, as their names were regist,r d at the
,tamp-office as such, and whether such circumstance
was not to be taken as conclusive evidence of their being
really propflelrilis 15f:the paper in vestr9n.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 28.
BRADFORD V. STONEUEWKR•

BREACH OF PROMIhE OF MARRIAGE.—Tbis was an
action for breach of promise of nun ria Le brought by
the plaintiff; a young f male. against the d. fen•iano, who
was a widower. -- - _ -

It appeared that sh xtly hefor last Christmas, t e
plaintiff, with her sister and her aunts, went to see a
cricket match at Wimbledon, where she resid. s, and in
the evening the party paid a visit to the P 1 ugh Tavern
in that place; where they met the defendant The result
of the meeting- was an intimacy bPtw., en the parties. and
the defendant begged to be p- rinitted to xisit th" plain-
tiff as her suitor. This was acceded to, and he fi.;-qtiertity
visited her in that capacity. In some short time afterwards
the plaintiff became pregnant, and it was al eged that
she was so because of her acquaintance with the de
fendant, which, however, he denied. It was at•the same
time given in evidence, that he frequently expressed his
determination to marry the plaintiff, and as he refused to
carry out his statement in this respect, the present action
was brought.
Mr. BAALEY, on the part of the defendantolenied that
there had ever been any promise of Farri..ige f the
plaintiff, and his speaking on the subject in the way men.
tioned to her relatives was merely a cover to enable him
to carry on his intimacy with her.
The CHIEF BARON, in summing up, thought the ex •
planation of the affair on the part of the defendant but a
poor excuse for his conduct, and said he thought the
plaintiff was entitled to damages, but that under all the
circumstances they ought to be moderate.
The jury returned a verdict for the plamtiff--Pe
mages, 101. :

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 28.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Commissioner

BULLOCK.)
WILBEE V. ASIIMEAD.
" A SCENE IN COURT."—SLANDEROUS DEFENCE.—
The plaintiff in this action is the landlord of the Three
Tuns, Moor. street, Seven-dials ; the defendant is a hatter
in Davies-stre't, Brk&ey-square.. The action was
brou4ht to recover the suns of 71. 12s. 2d., for wine,
&c., sepplied, aosl money lent.
Mr. PEARSON—For plaintiff, stated the case. On the
24th of March the defendant went to the plaintiff's
house with sonic friends, and had dingier and wine for
self and friends, and the bill amounted to 21. 10s. Two
or three days afterwards he was again at plaintiff's
house, and borrowed 71. He now pleaded the statute
against tippling, although it was for wine, steaks,
chops, &c., and that the 7/. lent was for g,ming
in plaintiff's house. The defendant's Counsel would en-
deavour to prove that he had been frandol.mtly induced to
drink ti: sir ke his ci,:ars. anti hoer w
his money. lie. the 1.,( arnei Counsel, would br able 0.
!Toy- !hat the tra,s,ction tn the part of the plaint if
was of the most ~.pright (diameter. and that there was
the slight-st ground for any one of the pl. as.
The plaintiff', i•r:ANI that the defendant went
to the house on the 24th of March last. He was a
stranger. but brother to a person who put up at the
house. At n ght, when he was asked for the money, t
said it must be put down to him, end he would call again.
lie was trusted on account of h s connexions.
Mr. Ed said Jackson proved that defendant signed an
I 0 U for money borrowed. Defendant was not drunk.