The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-14 00:00:00

BISHOP P. COX.

In this case which, like the first, was from the East Divi-
sion of Gloucester, _ _ _

Mr. Sergeant BAYLIS said, that as this case depended on
the same question as the previous one, it was unnecessary
to argue it again, but the decision in the former case would
govern this.

The Court assented.
ALEXANDER V. NEWMAN.

The respondent in this case holds a tenement by right of
which he claims a vote for the West Riding of Yorkshire.
The appellant objects that this tenement is but a part of a
larger estate, which has been divided amongst thirty-six
persons for the purpose of multiplying a vote. By several
statutes which were cited on the part of the appellant, it is
enacted that if any tenement shall be split, or divided
amongst several persons for the purpose of multiplying a
vote, that the conveyance by which such splitting or div,ision
is effected shall be null and void. It was urged that such
was the case in this instance, and that the Revising Bar-
rister was wrong in deciding that the respondent, Newman,
should be placed on the list of voters.
On the part of the respondent it was represented that the
Acts in question only referred to cases in which the splitting
was effected by a fraudulent conveyance, i. e., one in which
the tenement is given over without any actual purchase of
the same by payment.
In this case also their Lordships took time to consider.
Their Lordships rose at half-past three o'clock.
The Court will sit to-morrow in Banco at Westminster,
and at Nisi Prius in London.

The hearing of the appeals will be resumed on Monday
next, the 17th.

SHERIFFS' COURT. Nov. 13.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
=AMR V. HUMBER.
This was an action to recover the sum of 201. for money
leat.

The plaintiff is the landlord of the Ship, Stone's-end, Bo-
rough, the defendant a broker in the Commercial-road. The
plaintiff's brother proved that the defendant had admitted
that he had borrowed the money, and expressed his regret
that he could not repay it, as his partner had acted dishonestly
toward him.
Verdict for plaintiff.

SOLOMONS V. OROOMBRIDGE.
This was an action to recover the sum of 31. Is. 4d., the
amount of an attorney's bill. The defendant pleaded that
he never was indebted.
Mr. Saul Solomons, the plaintiff's brother, was called, and
he deposed that he went to liorsemonger-lane and saw John
Grootnbridge (the brother of the defendant), and in conse-
quence he went to the defendant's and took instructions
for an affidavit to set aside some proceedings for irregularity.
The next day he went to the Judge's Chambers, and met the
defendant and another brother, William, and an affidavit was
made, on which the Judge ordered the proceedings to be set
aside. The defendant signed a retainer at the time.
The witness admitted that the, item of 13s. for the term
fee would not be allowed on taxation.
Mr. Beard, a solicitor, said the charges were reasonable,
except the 13s. ; 10s. would he taxed on:
Mr. Glascow confirmed the giving the retainer as above
deposed to.
The defendant's attorney said that the original suit was
against John and William Groombridge, but that the defen-
dant having been served instead of 'William, the whole pro-
ceedings were irregular, but it was necessary that the defen-
dant should join in an affidavit. As to the retainer he urged
that the plaintiff's brother induced the defendant to sign by
saying that it was a matter of no consequence, a mere
matter of form, in order to enable him to go before a judge.
The proceedings hadbeen set aside and the plaintiff received
13s. 4d. costs in that suit by order of the judge. The actual
money out of pocket in the present bill was only Ss. There
was also another remarkable feature in the case, and that
was that the first item was made out for an attendance on the
defendant, and the second for the first attendance of John.

John Givombridpwaa called, andante that he instructed

the witness Saul Solomons, and after the pronedings wen
set aside he called on witness and said the judge had ordered
him 13s. 4d. for costs, and that he would only charge witness
30s. more. Witness had since tendered that sum.

Cross-examined by the plaintiff—Had taken the benefit of
the Insolvent Act in August last, and inserted plaintiff in
the schedule. Defendant had nothing to do with the matter.
William Groombridge deposed that Mr. G. Solomons said
that the retainer was merely a matter of form, in order to go
before the Judge. He did not say that it was to bind him to
pay the expenses. Mr. Solomons was very vexed because
witness and his brother would not employ him to take them
through the Court, and said that he would make them sorry
fur it.

The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said it did not
matter whether the defendant was interested in the original
suit or not, if he had employed the plaintiff. If the retainer
had been obtained by misrepresentation as to the object for
which it was wanted, the plaintiff could not now use it in
his favour.

The jury consulted, and almost immediately gave a ver-
dict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-ROUSE.

Yesterday a Mr. Home, who stated that he had been em-
ployed as a clerk to the Provisional Committees of two pro-
jected railroads, the principal managing Directors of which
are gentlemen of unquestionable character, applied to the
Lord Mayor to be informed whether his Lordship could
render assistance in the endeavour to obtain from them the
amount of wages due to him for performing the vary labo-
rious duties arising from the engagement he had formed with
them. The amount of wages due at the present moment by
one of the Provisional Committees wag 41. 165., and he was
solicited to take half that sum, but he had refused the offer.

" The LORD MAYOR said that he could not interfere in such
a case, and that the applicant might state his case at the
Court of Requests, and perhaps the authorities there would
grant him a summons.
The applicant said he should appeal to the Court of Re-
quests. _ _