The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-11 00:00:00

MATTHEW V. BRISE.

The Court then proceeded with the further arguments
in this case, which came. before the Court yesterday,
upon an appeal from the decision of the Master of the
Rolls, which ordered the defendant to make good the
amount of certain Exchequer-bills with which he was
entrusted, and which were lost to the Trust in conse-
quence of the defendant placing them in the hands of
his bankers, who ultimately became bankrupts.—The
case appears likely to occupy the whole day.
THE NEW LORD MAYOR.
The new Lord Mayor,, accompanied by the Sheriffs
and the Recorder, entered the Court, about a quarter
past two o'clock, and invited his Lordship to the enter-
tainment in the Guildhall this evening. It was gene-
rally remarked.in the Court that it was singular his
Lordship was not attended by the late Lord Mayor, or
by any Alderman except the Sheriffs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 9.
PHILLIPS V. BARLOW.—JUDGMENT.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND gave judgment
to-day in this case, which came before the Court upon
petition, praying that a certain fund in Court might be
paid to the petitioner. The question in the case was,
whether the person having the revisionary interest in
an estate in Wales, or the petitioner, the tenant for life,
was entitled to a certain sum of money that had been
paid into Court for timber that had been cut on the
estate.
His HONOUR decided that the petitioner (the tenant
for life) was entitled to
.the money, and ordered ac-
cordingly.
The Court then proceeded with cause petitions and
short causes.

COURT OF QUE,EIVS BENCH, Nov. 9.
(Sittingaellanco.)
ALFRED. V. ASHFORD.
This was an action brought -by an innkeeper against
the--Secretary of the Shepton Mallett Cricket Club, to
recover the amount of his bill, for refreshments supplied
to the club, and for the hiie of a field in which the club
played cricket. The case was tried at the last So-
mersetshire .Assizes before Mr. Justice Wightman, and
the jury found for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant KrNotasE now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial had, on the grounds first, of misdirection by
the Learned Judge ; and secondly, that the verdict
was against evidence. It appeared from the evi-
dence for the plaintiff, that the goods had been
supplied for the use of the club by the defendant's order,
that at a dinner given by the club he had distributed
the wine tickets, that he was secretary to the club, and
that he had never objected to pay his share of the bill as
a member of the club. For the defence a witness was
called, who stated that a Mr. Marshall was the president
of the club, and that plaintiff had sent in a bill to Mr.
Marshall, but as that bill was not produced, it might
be that that bill was precisely the one which had
been delivered to Mr. Ashford. The misdirection of
which he complained was this—the Learned Judge left it
to the jury to say whether or not exclusive credit had
been given to Marshall. Now, he contended that there
was no evidence whatever to show that any credit had
been given to Marshall except as a member of the club,
that there had been no evidence whatever to rebut the
evidence in support of the plaintiff's case, and that,
therefore, the verdict was-Clearly against evidence.
Lord DENMAN—Take your rule.—Rule nisi granted.
THE LORD MAYOR.
At a quarter-past two o'clock, the Right Honourable
the Lord Mayor, the Recorder; and the Sheriffs, Alder-
men Hunter and Sydney, entered -the Court, when the
Recorder, on behalf of the Lord Mayor, invited the
judges of the Court to the Lord Mayor's dinner.
Lord DENMAN said that some of the justices of the
Court would call upon the Lord Mayor.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.
SAVAGE V. COLLINS.
The plaintiff was the proprietor of certain houses in
progress of building at Camden-town, The defendant
supplied building materials to the builder who had
contracted for the work, but subsequently took away a
part of the materials, in consequence of the contractor
not having paid for them.
The jury found for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SnEA now moved for a rule to set aside
the verdict as against evidence, and to grant a new
trial.
Mr. Sergeant DOWLING showed cause against the
motion, which their Lordships refused.