The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, THURSDAY, Nov. SO.
STEPHENS V. UNTHANK.
Mr. ROUPELL stated that he had obtained an order for liberty
to prove, at the hearing before Lord "Gifford, the .execution of
mortgage deed. The only subscribing witness attended the Conrt
for that purpose. He was an old man, with very weak sight, and he
remained in Court es long as be was able; but when it grew
dusk he left the Court. He has since become totally blind. Mr.
Roupell now applied for leave to examine the witnesses tie bens
ease upon interrogatories.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS---Has the Court power, after an
accident of this nature, to, accede to a motion to examine the wit-
ness on interrogatories ?
Mr. SUGDEN—I apprehend not.
The MASTER OF Till. ROLLS—I will make an order.
Mr. Stionzu—The practice of the Court is the law of the Court.
The Manta or THE ROLLS—Certainly) but if the Court has
not the power;- They are mere shackled thin a Court of Law. I
will make the, precedent.
• After some further discussion, Mr. ROUPELL at last acceded to
Mr. Sugden's offer, admitting all such facts as could have been
obtained by a favourable answer to all such questions as Mr. Ron-
pelt or the Registrar would have had,a right to have put to
the witness if the accident had not happened.
Mr. SUGEMN--On payment of coats.
Mr. Roc rer.t—What ! the act of Gad?
The AiAhTSH. Or THE ROLLS—It muet be on payment of costs.
The misfortune is yours. The act of God commits no injustice.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, THURSDAY, Nov. 80.

roan, PLAINTIFF', nEsillwrow AND elle, BA NIKVISp OARNISIMEA,
SVALKOND, M.P. FOR MJDRURY, DIKFENDANT•
Upon a former day Mr. Barnard moved that the plaintiff
should Show cause why common bail should not be filed in disso-
_ _

tion of this attachment, the defendant having the privilege of
Parliament. The motion was founded upon an affidavit, stating
that on the 18th of June Mr. Walrond was elected and returned
as Representative for the Borough of Sudbury, in the county of
Suffolk, in the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland,
and that the attachment in this muse was issued, and the action
of debt on which it was founded, was entered on the 4th of
Auguit lost, as appeared by the record, and subsequent to the re-
turn of the defendant to serve in Parliament.
The amount of the plaintiff's claim was 1,0501., and it was
admitted by him that the defendant was a Representive in Par-
liament. ,A nde nisi was granted, and
BintiArtn oa Wednesday called upon the plaintiff to show
cause. . .

Mr. BOLLAND, for the plaintiff, said he would moat unfeignedly
say that common bail ought not to be taken in dissolution of this

tiachruent.
Mi. Law argued upon the ranee side, and quoted several
authorities.

Mr. flanwarto argued that the attachment ought to be die-.
charged-upon the filing of common bail. Mr. Waliond was not,
he contended, liable to be held to hail in that Court. The plain-
tiff's action,tuust be brought according to the custom, and it must
appear upon the return that Mr. %frond was non eat inventus ct
nihil, before he could be made amenable, and no such return had
been made.

Mr. LAW said that such return had been made.
Mr. BAILNA RD denied it. How could it be said that Mr.
Walroud could he held to bail ? In what Court could he be
held to ban ? No capita could go against his person. He could
not be brought into that Court, and therefore the foundation of
the action failed. The question really Was, whether this gentle-
men, as a Member of the Home of Commons, could be held to
bail in that Court. How would the Speaker of the House of
Commora, digest the intelligence; that 'because a Merither refused
to appear in that Court be was sent to the Poultry Cornpter ?
Mr. LA would'nt like it at all, rdare say.—(A laugh.)
The llitcoanca.--Well, Mr. Barnard, I have very little doubt
indeed on the case, but I shall consider it.---Judgment postponed.

COUR'

T OP ExcHEQUEII-..:Nov. SO.
(Continued front our paper of yesterday.)
DEPENDANT'S CASE.
Mr. Jewels rose to address the Jury for the defendant. The
Learned Counsel stated that Mr. Oldfield had been unfortunate
1
and criminal enough to engage in certain gambling transactions,
for which he was fined and imprisoned by the Court of King's
Bench. The. fine was no leas than 4,500 ,and Mr. Oldfield had
been in custody in execution of the sentence of the Court, from
February, 1828, down to the
nefarious transactions, induced him to
resent time. The misery brought
upon the defendant by these
endeavour to gain his' livelihood by entering some honest business,
and in the year 182, he was an entered wine merchant in Pall-
mall. He begged leave to call the attention of the Jury to the
amount of the fines which were now endeavoured to he levied upon
the unfortunate defendant. Ths first offence charged against him,
was for obtaining a Permit for it 'certain purpose to which it was
never applied : the penalty for thii was bOO/. The second of-
fence was of a similar nature, and the penalty the sArnst. These
two involved two other offences, namely, those of' not returning
the peruke to the Excise office, as they had not been used
for the purpose ' for which they were obtained
for each of these Offences was 1001. The third offence was, that
of mixing a goodwine with an inferior one; .anal selling it under
; and the penalty
the name of superior. - 'The penalty 14 the latter was SOO/.
When the Jury considered this, he was quite sure that they would
think it a fearful suit, and be very anxious to sift the evid
upon which a •man was to be thtis severely visited. Nearly ence
the
whole rested upon the uncorroborated testimony of that self-con-
victed and disgraced witness, Mr. Tooke. lie put it to the corn.
MO 'moo of the Jury to deohio who lied committed these nal-

practices. Where was Oldfis the time?: In prison. And
even if be had not been, could it be supposed that the defendant
was the inventor and executor of these mixtures and doctoring',
and that-the experienced wine-merchant of so years' standing
was standing idly by, and neither directing nor interfering with
the operation? He submitted that no penalties could be recovered
against his client. Mr. Oldfield.
Mr. Baron Gannow then charged the Jury. . The principal
grounds of the present information were, that two permits had
been obtained by the firm of the defendant ; the one for the trans-
ferof 288 bottles-of wine to a person named Bnckby ; the other
for transferring wine, to the amount of 110 gallons, to the mother
of the defendant. This was proved by written documents, and it
was also proved that they, or at least the first of them, was not
applied to the purpose for which it was obtained. The witness
Tooke, upon whom much depended, came before them implicated
in all these transactions, and was therefore to be listened to with
great caution. The question was, whether his testimony was cor-
roborated by other evidence. The dates of the bills of parcels for
powdered oyster-shells, and the other ingredients for flavour, cor-
responded with the dates of the perwiits. It might be true that
this flavour was for Tooke's use in his men business; but then
the clerk of the defendant swears that he paid that witness for the
flavour, and charged it to his master. His Lordship thought it
would he unnecessary to draw the attention of the Jury to any
other portions of the case. He had pointed out the leading
features, and would only remind them that one of the counts
being dropped by the Attorney-General, the case was now con-
fined to the not using of two permits, and the mixing of the
wines,

The Jury then retired for about a quarter of an hour, rind,
upon their coming into Court again, returned a verdict for the
Crown on one permit, that of Mr. Buckby.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CamaniALL, Nor. 30.

DiTTON V. 11.41.94E5.

This was an action at the instance of the plaintiff, to recover
100/., paid to the plaintiff by the defendant while under age, for
the (attires of a house taken for him by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Seatiara stated the case, and proved the contract
by the plaintiff's two brothers, and that the defendant was well
acquainted with the plaintiff and his family.
Mr.-Sergeant Wanx, for the defendant, endeavoured to con-
vince the Jury that the defendant did not know that the plaintiff
was under age; that he (the plaintiff) was in partnership with
one of the brothers ; and that such a house was by no means un-
suitable to his station. That the action was merely a contrivance
between the brothers, in order to obtain from the defendant the
loss sustained by a re-sale of the fixtures. -
The CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the defendant, under
the circumstances, could not have been ignorant of the plaintiff's
being a minor, and wished it to be known by all that the law
treated with the utmost severity those who encouraged the extra-
vagance of infants, which was frequently the means of ruining
them. Verdict for the plaintiff-1001.