The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-25 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
ahe Court took the Crown paper, but nothing of any
importance came before it.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
Several motions were heard by the Court, but none of
hem were of the slightest public importance.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WADE V. SIMEON.
Mr. WATSON said he appeared in this case to show
cause against a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the order of Mr. Baron Alderson should not
be set aside on such terms as the Court should direct.
The action was brought in that Court in the month of
May last upon two cheques made by the defendant, one
dated May and the other July, 1840, and amounting to-
gether to 2,0001. Amongst other pleas the defendant
had pleaded that he gave these cheques for money
lost at play, and that the plaintiff well knew of
their illegality at the time when he took them.
It appeared also from the affidavits, that the present de-
fendant had filed a bill in Chancery, which was answered
by the plaintiff. The cause was appointed to be tried as
a special jury cause on the 7th of December. Some
overtures having been made by the defendant to the
plaintiff to compromise the action, which were always
resisted and refused by the plaintiff, on the 6th of De-
cember the defendant's attorney sent for the attorney of
the plaintiff, and stated that he did not wish to defend
the action, and that he would, therefore, agree to pay
the debt and costs. Upon this it was arranged between
the two attorneys that the record should be withdrawn,
and that a judge's order should be obtained, under which
payment should be made on the 14th December.
Mr. Baton ALDERSON—Tt was stated that since the
date of the order new evidence had been discovered.
Mr. WATSON said he objected altogether to any in-
crease of jurisdiction on the part of the Court. The or-
der of Mr. Baron Alderson was drawn up on the 6th of
December. (The Learned Counsel then read the order,
which, after stating the agreement, provided that, in
case of default, the plaintiff should be at liberty to sign
final judgment, and to issue execution for the whole
amount.) The affidavits stated that on 7th of December,
the day after the date of the order, a person named
Ledbitter, who had formerly been a Bow-street
officer, obtained some information from a person
of the name of Atkins, who alleged that he had
been a partner with a man named Davis
in a gambling house. On the evening of the 13th of
December, a summons was served on the plaintiff's at-
torney, calling upon him to show cause why the order
of Mr. Baron Aldersen should not be rescinded, and the
parties be allowed to go to trial. The case came before
Mr. Baron Rolfe at chambers, who refused to determine
the question, but ordered the principal money and in •
terest to be paid into Court, leaving the parties at liberty
to apply to the Court in the course of the present term.
The application had now been made by his Learned
Friend (Mr. Martin) on the part of the defendant ; and
what he set up was this, that between the 6th of
December, when this agreement was made between
the parties, and the 14th, his client discovered
some evidence which he believed would enable him suc-
cessfully to maintain his defence to the action. Now,
his objections to this rule were twofold—first, he con-
tended that the Court had no jurisdiction in this case;
and, secondly, that, supposing the Court had jurisdic-
tion, under the circumstances detailed in the affidavits,
it would not be justified in exercising it. In the case of
proceedings going on adversely, he admitted that the
Court had power to interfere; as, for example, when
there had been misdirection on the part of the judge, a
verdict against evidence, or a surprise, and justice could
not be obtained without a new trial. But what their
Lordships were now asked to do was, to rescind a con-
tract between the parties.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the strength of the
Learned Counsel's argument was, that the Court ought
not to interfere to enable a party to break his contract.
Mr. WATSON said that was his position. He did not
know where the matter was to stop if rules were to be
granted in cases like that before the Court. Take the
case of a cognovit. If a party had given a cognovit,
could he afterwards be allowed to say," I have discovered
some new evidence, and I will go to a jury ?" He con-
ceded at once, that if the agreement had been obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation the rule must be granted, but
there was no pretence whatever for such a statement.
The Learned Counsel then referred to the case of Blight
and Brewer, 3d" Dowling's Practical Cases," page 266.
That was a motion to set aside a cognovit, on the ground
that the consideration was illegal ; and, though 60L had
been actually paid, the motion was refused.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that by the 9th of Anne,
cap. 14, all notes, bills, bonds, and other securities, in
respect of gambling transactions, were void.
Mr. WATSON said the present was not at all the case
contemplated by the statute, which meant all securities
given for money won at play.
The LORD CHIEF BARON observed that any security
substituted for the original one was in the same position.
Mr. WATSON said, that under a recent statute, such
securities were not actually void.
The LORD CHIEF BARON inquired if Mr. Wade was
the actual plaintiff ?
Mr. WATSON said he was the holder of the cheque. It
was alleged, on the other side, that a person of the name
of Davis, or one of his partners, first won the money in
playing at hazard, and that the plaintiff received it,
knowing such to be the fact. The defendant's attorney
had had the opportunity of examining his opponent's
briefs, and of ascertaining his case.
Mr. Baron PARKE said there could be no great hard-
ship upon the defendant if the money were paid, because,
if it were won at play, it could be recovered back again
under the 6th Will. IV.
Mr. WATSON said the plaintiff was a shopkeeper in
the Strand, where his father had carried on business
before him. All the arbitration cases were entirely
against the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court.
The case made out on the other side was not one which
called upon the Court to interfere. These were the state-
ments of Mr. Simeon and his attorney, and of Mr. Led-
bitter, who had been employed to procure the evidence ;
and five persons were produced who avowed themselves
to be gamblers, not one of whom said that Davis was
present when loaded dice were used. Besides this, Led-
bitter had actually offered 500/. to Davis to appear as a
witness. It was an important point that Davis said he
did not know the plaintiffs. He was alleged to have been
the winner of the money, and to have had the cheques
subsequent to the action ; but that also was denied.
Uader all the circumstances of the case, he thought he
was entitled to ask that the rule might be discharged.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE followed On the same side.
Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the defendant, said he
had been astonished at the proposition of his Learned
Friend, that where an order had been made by consent
of the parties the Court could not, under any circum-
stances, have the least power to interfere to set it aside.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said there could be no doubt
as to the power.
Mr. MARTIN said the action was brought upon two
cheques four years old. Immediately after it com-
menced every possible means was used to obtain evi-
dence. Ledbitter, the most competent man in the king-
dom, was employed for that purpose, and it was proved
that he had done all in his power to effect the object.
The cause stood for trial on the 7th of
December, and on the evening of that day
important information was obtained. It was sworn that
the evidence was not complete until the 13th, and the
moment it became so the defendant went before a Judge,
and paid the money into Court. If ever there was a fit
case for the interference of the Court, the present was
one. It was impossible that stronger grounds could
exist. It was sworn most positively that, after
the action was brought no less than five dif-
ferent people had seen these cheques in the
possession of Davis ; and as this was denied by Mr.
Davis and Mr. Russell, his Learned Friend would have
the advantage of calling them on the trial to disprove the
statement. It appeared from all the affidavits,
that Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell went down to
serve the writs ; that they were together in
August, when one of the witnesses saw in their
possession two documents, which he says were
the cheques, but which they say were two I 0 U's. It
was impossible, he repeated, to make out a stronger case
for the interference of the Court, and he maintained that
the Court would be fully justified in granting the
rule. It would be a very injurious practice if
there were a peremptory rule excluding parties
from applying for a new trial on the discovery of fresh
evidence,. under the circumstances of the case before the
Court.
Mr. BARSTOW followed on the same side. He called
the attention of the Court to the important distinction
between a case in which the proceeding was in fie) i, and
a case in which anything had been done. In the pre-
sent instance the order of the Judge had not been acted
upon.
The COURT intimated that they would give their deci-
sion on Monday.

LAMBETH.—(THIS DAY.)
Thos. Coate and Edward Newbery, two fine lads, were
charged before the Hon. Mr. Norton, by police-constable
P 151, with gambling in Surrey-square. It appeared in
evidence before the Magistrate that the poor lads had
been locked up at the station-house all night, and the
only offence of which they had been guilty was that of
playing at " pitch and toss" with buttons.
Mr. NORTON said that really the police must be more
cautious ; the prisoners ought never to have been taken
into custody at all. He directed the boys to be instantly
discharged.

FlRE.—This morning an alarming fire broke out,
about half past four o'clock, on the premises of Mr.
Webb, a broker and auctioneer, residing in Peter-street,
Whitechapel. As a man named Wilmot, who resided in
the same street, was passing at the time named, he per-
ceived smoke issuing from the grating over the kitchen
window, and upon looking down through it he saw a
large body of flame. when he at once raised an alarm,
and the inmates were with much difficulty made sensible
of their perilous pssition. Fortunately the flames had
not gained such an ascendancy as to have reached the
first floor at the time, so that they were all enabled to
make their escape through the hall ; in less than five
minutes after all the lower part t f the building was one
body of flame. By this time several engines from the
adjacent stations were in attendance, with their usual
promptitude and alacrity, and succeeded in confining
the fire to the lower part of the premises, the greater
portion of which, as well as a large quantity of furni-
ture which was stored there, was totally destroyed, In
less than half an hour after the arrival of th.
the firemen had so far succeeded in engines,
...
as to banish any further -- .Loaning the flames,
remainder ^r '
~)prehension with respect to the
am house, or the adjacent premises, which
at one time were in imminent danger. Unfortunately,
Mr. Webb was not insured.