The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-16 00:00:00

BIINGEIAM.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it would be in
the recollection of the Court, that in each of these cases
a rule for a mandamus had been directed to be made ab-
solute against the new corporations, ordering them to
award compensation to certain officers. That rule had
been directed to be drawn up in the alternative directed
either to the corporation or to the town council. Some
difficulty had arisen at the office in amending the rule,
so as to enable Counsel to direct it to whichever party
they might think fit.
• Lord DENMAN—We always presume that the parties
brought before the Court are the right parties.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—There can be no doubt as
to the identity of the parties in the present case. The
town council and the corporation are essentially the same
parties, both are before the Court, and my application is,
to amend the rule so as to have it drawn up is accord-
ance with the directions of the Court.
Lord DENMAN—I should not imagine that there could
be any objection to that —Application granted.

-
THE QUEEN V. SCOTON.
The defendant in this case had been convicted at the
last Stafford assizes of perjury. A motion in arrest of
judgment had been made last term by Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd, and the Court had fixed this morning to give
judgment on Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's motion.
The ATTORNEY• GENERAL applied to the Court to
name some other day. The Court no doubt had intended
that the defendant should be present, in order that, it the
rule should be discharged he might be brought up for
judgment. The defendant was not present. Another
ground of his application was, that the case having been
tried before Mr. Justice Williams, it would be advisable
that that Learned Judge should be present when the
judgment of the Court should be delivered.
Lord DENMAN—WO certainly intended that the de-
fendant should be present : let the case stand over trail
this day week, and I will speak to my brother Williams,
who will on that day come into this Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
COFFIN V. BRAITHWAITE.

Mr. RICHARDS moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict found for the plaintiff in this case, which was
tried before Mr. Baron Rohe on Friday last, should not
be set aside and entered for the defendant, or why
judgment should not be arrested. It appeared that the
plaintiff, with a party of friends, intending to visit
Sheerness, embarked on board the Prince Albert steam-
boat. When off Gravesend. the captain caused the
plaintiff and his friends to disembark, believing them to
be members of the " swell mole," by which they were
put to considerable inconvenience, and were refused a
passage by any of the other steam-boats, from th, pre-
judice.which had been created against them. They
were obliged to take a carriage to town, and were con-
sequently put to considerable expense. The defendant
had paid 2/. Its. into Court, the amount of the ex-
penses to which the plaintiff and his friends had been
put. Mr. Richards contended that the captain of the
steam-boat was not responsible for the annoyances to
which the party had been subjected from being placed
under the surveillance of the police, and from the hoot-
ngs of a mob of 200 persons.—Rule granted.

ACRADIAN V. COOPER.
Sir T. WILDE moved for a ruld to show cause why the
verdict found in this case for the plaintiff, for 8,400/, at
the last sittings at Guildhall, should not be set aside,
or a new trial had, or a nonsuit entered, on the ground
that a question was left to the jury which ought not to
have been left. The action was for the recovery of a
paper purporting to be a scrip receipt for 10,0001. paid
on account of shares in the Royal Mail and Steam Packet
Company. Messrs. Acraman and Morgan had borrowed
20,0001. from Messrs. Cooper, Thompson, and Co., on
the security of certain scrip receipts in the above-named
Company.—Rule granted.

DUNN V. TURNER.
Mr. CURRY applied for a rule to show cause why the
♦erdict found for the plaintiff in this case, which was
tried before the Under-Sheriff of Staffordshire in No-
vember last, should not be set aside and entered for the
defendant, or a new trial had. The action was for goods
sold and delivered. The plaintiff sold to the defendant a
number of cows, and a portion of the purchase-money
was paid. Subsequently the cows were found to be un-
sound. The defence set up was to this effect. The action
was brought for the balance of the amount.
Rule granted.