The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-11 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 10.

SMITH AND ANOTHER V. SHANKEr AND ANOTHER.

3lr. RICHARDS opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER stated that this was
art action to recover 1001. for goods .sold and de-
livered. The first plaintiff, Mr. Smith, was a Cap-
tain in the East India CoMpany's service, and
about three years since commanded the ship irillianz
Fairlie. The other plaintiff, Mr. Fearon, was at
that time the purser of the same ship, and, as was
not unusual in the East India trade, the Captain and
he were in partnership, and, among other things,
brought with them from India a pair of valuable
Chinese screens. When the ship arrived in Eng-
land, these screens were sent to the house of a Mr.
Demay, an upholsterer in Duke-street, St. James's,
for sale, and after they had remained there for some
months, the defendants, tea-dealers in Hounds-
' ditch, who sometimes dealt in articles of this
kind, determined to purchase them, and ac-
cordingly sent to Mr. Demay's, and got
possession of them. This was in August last, but
they had since refused to pay them, the Learned Ser-
jeant was informed, upon the ground that some of
the rocks introduced in the landscapes depicted upon
the screens were not so highly gilt as rocks of that
kind should be; and again that the face of one of
the female figures introduced to embellish the scene
was not so blooming or so fair as the complexion of
the lady intended to be represented might be suppo-
sed to be. This, however, was erroneous, for the
Learned Sergeant was instructed that the face ob-
jected to was intended by the artist to pourtray the
features of a black female attendant.

Witnesses were then called who spoke positively
to those facts, swearing that the screens were worth
from 701. to 751. each.

Mr. Sergeant E. LAwEs, who with Mr. IlliTCll-
- appeared for the defendants, called witnesses
to prove that the screens were blemished and
imperfect.
The Jury, however, after a short deliberation, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, 100/.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JULY 10.
PEDDLE V. EVANS.

When Sir JOHN IsltcuoLL entered the Court
this morning, the Deputy Registrar handed to him
some papers connected with this case.
Dr. LEE.—I am Counsel in this cause, and—
Sir JOHN Nicitou..—You interrupt the Court,
Sir.

Dr. LEE.-I am about to make a motion in this
cause.

Sir JOHN NicHoLL.—The cause of " Peddle v.
Evans" is not now pending in this'Court, and I shall
not therefore allow any such motion to be made.
The individual with whom the present proceeding
originated, if he knew what was due to his own
character, ought to have refrained from such a step.
If censures of this kind should fail of their effect,
the Court would then feel it to be its duty to resort
to some effectual measure,—namely, suspension,--to
put an effectual stop to such irregular proceedings.
Charges of a grave and serious nature were pre-
ferred, as connected with a cause which many years
ago this Court had most carefully disposed of, and a
punishment no less than the suspension of the
Registrars and Deputy Registrars of this Court was
prayed for on the ground of malpractices, said to
have been committed by those persons. Ex-parte
applications of this kind could not be entertained
even if the case were within the province of the
Court. The motion, ettir,those reasons, could not be
entertained.

Dr. LEE protested against this judgment.
Sir J. Nicitem, again protested against these re-
peated interruptions, and he asked whether the offi-
cers present were prepared to protect the Court.
Dr. LEE said, that as Counsel in the case he had
a right to be heard.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL entreated the Learned Gen-
tleman to consider the course he was pursuing. lie
begged of him to be governed by reason arid mo-
deration, and not to be led away by passion.
Dr. LEE did not require this admonition, neither
did he seek for the assistance of the Learned Judge
in the performance of his duty.
A case was then called, when the Learned Doctor
again interrupted the proceedings of the Court, by
requiring a written copy of its judgment.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL--Officer, desire Dr. Lee to
sit down, or walk out of the Court. If he will not
be silent, you must remove him, but with as little
violence as possible.

Dr. LEE was again about to interrupt the Court,
when

Sir H. JENNER (his Majesty's Advocate), in the
name of the Bar, called upon the Court to vindicate
its authority.
Dr. LEE, however, rendered any such measure
unnecessary by sitting down, and soon after be left
the Court.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 10.
----

Thomas Tripp, au export-officer, was brought up
on his petition to be discharged, and was opposed,
in person, by a Mr. Sadler, of Mile-End-road.

In March-, 1825, Tripp made a complaint at the
Thames police-office for damage done by Sadler to a
fence he (Tripp) had put on a piece of ground
alleged to be the boundary of the parties' premises.
Sadler contended before the Magistrates, that it
was a question of disputed right to the ground, and
therefore, the Act under which the complaint was
made could not be enforced,—the Magistrate thought
otherwise, and demanded a pledge of Sadler that
he would immediately commence an action of
trespass against Tripp for erecting the fence, or he
(the Magistrate) should view Sadler's defence as a
mere shuffle, and would issue a warrant against him
for the alleged damage. An action was therefore
brought of necessity. Sadler stated that he had
made several offers to abandon the proceedings,
upon each party paying his own costs, and that his
overtures were rejected; but not being able to prove
this statement, he was stepped by the Court.
The cause having proceeded, was called on for
trial, and referred to the Master, who, on the 2d
May, 1827, made his award of one farthing da-
mages, thereby establishing the fact that Tripp, the
original complainant, was the trespasser.
After the award, and before execution, the i,►-
solvent removed his furniture, and mortgaged his
premises to one Hewitt, a butcher, of Mile End-
road, for 1301. which sum, however, it appeared
from his schadule, he had paid away amongst his
creditors, who had become clamorous, and he did
it to satisfy them.

The Court here observed that a debtor was jus-
tified in discharging his just debts, before preparing
plaintiff's costs were
taxed a
a fund to satisfy actions of assault or trespass.
On h
fiJteit.ei,fatchieas
issued,
under which
the sum of 10/. was levied ; aud, on the 10th of
tte 733/0. t
ahnd of a
May last, insolvent was taken under a capias ad
sati.sfacicrldzn.
Sadler, having failed in opposing insolvent, ap-
plied to have a portion of his salary (103/. 12s. per
annum) allotted to the payment of his costs; but
insolvent having a wife and ten children, the Court
thought he ought to forbear for the present, and
reserved that point for future consideratton.—lnsol-
vent
.discharged. at

A few evenings ago a man, who had been
drinking Whiskey on the preceding night, was found dead
in his bed, baying died from the effects of the liquer.--
Liverpool Albion.