The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-05 00:00:00

WEBSTER V. WILBON.

This was an action brought against the Mayor of
Kendal for an assault. The mayor had held his court
for the election of town-councillors in a room, and put
up a notice stating that none but persons coming to
vote were to be admitted. The plaintiff; a burgess, ac-
companied a voter to the room, and was ejected by the
defendant. He therefore brought his action for the
assault, and the Lord Chief Baron, before whom the
cause was tried, held that the defendant had a right to
hold his court in a room, and to eject the defendant; and
told the jury, that if they were of opinion that the
arrangements were proper, they would find for the de-
fendant. The jury found for the defendant, but added
that they thought the arrangements were not propr.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the
judge, inasmuch as by the 82d section of the Municipal
Act the plaintiff had a right to be present in the room,
and also that the court was an open court, and the de-
fendant had no power to remove the plaintiff from the
court, and also on the ground that the verdict, although
nominally for defendant, was in fact for plaintiff, inas-
much as it stated that defendant's arrangements were
not proper,
Lord DEN3LIN—You are entitled to a rule.
Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
There was nothing of interest in any of the motions
which cam) before the Court this morning. At eleven
o'clock the Court resumed the case of "Payne v. the
Guardians of the Strand Union," which occupied all the
afternoon of yesterday, and would engage the Court till
its rising this day. It was a claim for 50/., for work
done as a surveyor, which was disputed by the Board of
Guardians. The case was a complicated one, and pos-
sessed little interest.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

COLLINSON V. THE NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON RAIL

WAY COMPANY.

This was an action tried at the last Durham assize,
before Mr. Justice Cresswell, to recover certain penalties
of the defendants for injuries done to the plaintiff by in
terfering with a road upon his farm. By the 263 d sec-
tion of the Act for constructing the railway, it was
enacted that where a road was "cut through, raised, de-
pressed, or crossed," so as to become impassable, the de-
fendants should construct another road in its place, or
renvttly the defects in the old one. By the succeeding
section Ot." the Act, it was enacted that the defendants
should pay 0!e sum of 20/. a day to the collector of the
trust of such roaci, so long as the specific instructions in
the Act were not com with. In the case of a private
road the Act provided that
psvment should e made to
°leaded b
th at under
the proprietor. The defendants htLi
their Act the plaintiff could not -ma:.7tain. an
tion, he not being the owner, but merely the c'ect!-
pier of the farm, across which the road ran. This
road was intersected by the Company's line at
its junction with the Darlington-road ; and the
plaintiff alleged that his communication with Darlington,
which is a market town, had been seriously impeded.
The jury on the trial, after several hours' deliberation,
could not agree upon a verdict. At.midnight they went
to Mr. Justice Cresswell's chambers, and informed him
that eleven of them were unanimous in their verdict,
but that the twelfth differed from them. The Learned
Judge directed them to find a verdict for the defendants,
with leave to the plaintiff to move the Court above. He
also said that in his opinion the plaintiff was not the
proper person to have brought the action.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved the Court for a rule to
show cause why the verdict given at the trial should not
be set aside, and a new trial granted.
The COURT, after considerable discussion, allowed a
rule nisi, and expressed a hope that an amicable settle-
ment might be effected between the parties, by which
the exorbitant expense of a new trial would be avoided.
Mr. KNOwLEs, who concurred in the sentiments ex-
pressed by the Court, stated that the defendants would
find his client willing to enter into an amicable
arrangement.

HAYWOOD V. RAYWOOD.

This was an actionfrtried before Mr. Justice Whiteman,
at the last Worcester assizes, and the jury, to the sur-
prise of the Learned Judge, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for 2181. The action was brought by Anne flay-
wood, the admlnistratrix of John Haywood, deceased.
The defendant, Jacob Haywood, was a large farmer, in
Worcestershire, and employed his brother, John Hay-
wood, whom he had relieved from pecuniary difficulties,
to manage two farms of which he was the owner. The
action was for work and labour rendered to the defendant
by the testator, the plaintiff, and their son and daughter.
No specific agreement was made between the parties as
to the amount of remuneration which they were to re-
ceive for their services,' and the only evidence of any
arrangement consisted in a conversation between the
plaintiff's son and the defendant, the defendant telling
him that he would allow 2!. 2s. a week for the two
•.•
farms.

Mr. CROWDER now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the
evidence.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
'WOOD V. wEncwowrit.
This was an action of trespass, to which the defendant
pleaded a light of way. On this issue was joined, and
the jury found for the plaintiffs, damages 40s. The
question was whether a way through two closes, which
had Lbeen long used as a thoroughfare, was a public way
or not.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA. this day obtained a rule nisi for a
new trial,

WILMOT V. WILLIAMS.

This was an action upon a bill of Exchequer for 1801.,
in which the verdict was for the plaintiff. The case was
tried in London before Mr. Justice Cresswell.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES this day moved for a rule for a
new trial, on the gronnd that the Learnel Judge had
excluded material evidence.

After hearing the Learned Sergeant at conidderable
length, the Court refused the rule.

HOLDING v. STUTCHFIELD.

This was an action of debt, in which the defendant
bad obtained a rule to stay proceedings upon affidavit
that the amount of the debt and costa (281. 7s. 6d.) had
been paid to the plaintiff's attorney.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY now moved for a rule to re-
scind that order, on the ground that the money was not
paid in four days after the declaration was filed, but on
the sixth day, the plaintiff having incurred additional
costs to the amount of 21. in the meantime.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said that as the money bad
been received, the application came too late, and must be
refused.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.)
IN THE MATTER OF MARY ADCOCK.

The insOl;eCt-WplitY tiroUgliher—EZnsel, Mr.
Sturgeon, for her final order. She was opposed by Mr.
Lucas, on the part of the late Sheriffs of Middlesex,
Messrs. Musgrove and Moon, for fraudulently contract-
ing a debt of upwards of 501.
Evidence was entered into to show that in the month
of November last an execution was put into a house oc-
cupied by some relatives of the insolvent, when she
claimed the goods distrained, and they were given up
to her by the Sheriff. She afterwards entered an action
for unlawfully breaking into and entering her premises,
but a verdict was returned for the defendant, the jury
finding that the property seized belonged not to the in-
solvent but to her relative.
Mr. Lucas contended that under these circumstances,
the commencing an action without any reasonable pros-
pect of being able to pay the costs, was a fraudulent
ccmtracting of a debt..
In reply to his Hortoun, the insolvent said that she
had at that time no means of paying the expenses in-
curred, and
The Learned COM3IISSIONER gave it as his opinion
that bringing an action against the Sheriffs under such
circumstances was unjustifiable and fraudulent, and the
final order was in consequence adjourned sine die.

IN 11E NEWLAND.
In this case, the Rev. William Newland, of West-
square, Lambeth, Whose name has for a considerable
period been before the various Law Courts of West-
minster, in connexion with an alleged trespass upon
some property belonging to a Mr. Holmes, applied for
his interim order.
Mr. CooKE, who opposed, said that his client (Mr.
Holmes) was a creditor in the sum of 4721., the damages
and costs in an action of trespass. The action had been
tried before the superior Courts, and Mr. Holmes was
already out of pocket somewhat more than 2,000/. Mr.
Newland had already applied to the Insolvent
Court, but had been refused relief there, on
the ground that he had not given an account of pro-
perty to the value of 12,000/. possessed by his wife in
the funds, as also several houses In West-square. He
(Mr. Cooke) contended that having been already refused
in the Insolvent Court, he could not now apply to the
Court of Bankruptcy.
Mr. Newland, at considerable length, appealed to
his Honour's sense of justice. He thought he had been
most cruelly treated in the law proceedings adverted to,
and he cited several cases to prove that that Court had
a legal jurisdiction in the present matter.
Mr. Commissioner FANE said the whole proceedings
were much to be regretted. It would have been more
prudent every way—more like Christians and country-
men, if, instead of spending such large sums in law
processes, they had come to some amicable arrange-
ment. He could not give an immediate judgment on the
point as to whether the insolvent's petition eould be re-
ceived, for be was somewhat opposed to his learned