The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-15 00:00:00

PONTIFEX V. WILKINSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
coppersmiths, against the defendant, a builder, to recover
the price of a large boiler set up by them under his
directions, in the house of a gentleman in the country,
for whom the defendant was employed.
The defence was that Wilkinson was not liable, not
having given the order to the plaintiffs as upon his owr.
responsibility, but for and on account of the gentleman
whose agent only he was in the transaction.
The verdict was for the plaintiffs, but the defendant
subsequently obtained a rule for a new trial, upon which
their Lordships reserved their judgment. The Court
now made the rule absolute, and ordered the case to go
down again for trial.
THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. ROBINSON AND OTHERS.
The plaintiffs in this case are proprietors of large
tracts of land in the north of Ireland, adjoining Loughs
Foyle and Swilly. The defendants have severally con-
tracted to drain portions of that land, and this action
was brought against them to recover damages for breach
of contract. The verdict was substantially for the de-
fendants. The plaintiffs, last term, substantially
a rule nisi
fora new trial, upon which, after a long argument, in
which several sergeants were engaged on both sides, the
Court reserved judgment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE now gave judgment for the
new trial, and made the rule absolute.

GRANT V. HUNT.
This was an action against the Southanipton Bank
on a bill of exchange accepted for them, but refused on
presentation. The defence was that the acceptor had
not the defendants' authority. The facts of the case did
not coma very fully before the Court in the first instance.
but were referred to Mr. Sergeant Shea, from whom
they came before the Court as a special case, which was
argued in Trinity Term. Their Lordships now gave
judgment for the plaintiff.
Their Lordships then took the new trial paper.
PHILLIPS V. IRVING.
This was an action for breach of contract in the sup-
plying of a large quantity of copper coin for the Mexican
Government. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and Sir
T. Wilde now obtained a rule nisi for a new trial. The
facts will be more conveniently reported when the rule
comes on for argument. They were fully reported at the
time of the trial, but as they ere somewhat interesting,
historically and commercial, a brief reference to them
will again be expedient.
VirEFIB V. BEV .1•14 AND OTHERS.
This was an action for trespass and forcible entry. It
was tried before Mr. Justice Erle at the sittings after
the last term, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff,
damages 25/.- The following is a brief statement of the
facts :—Mr. Bevan, who is a Chancery barrister, kept
horses at the livery stables of Mrs. Savage, in Fetter-
lane, a person named Stocken having acted for sotae
time as foreman of the establishment. For a
considerable time this person appeared to have
enjoyed the confidence both of his mistress, Mrs. Savage,
and of her customers, but at the period when the pre-
sent cause of contention arose, he no longer possessed
their good opinion. Mr. Bevan having determined to
sell one of his horses. desired Mrs. Savage to send the
animal to Tattersall's for that purpose. Subsequently
to his giving instructions on this poict, Mrs. Savage had
occasion to go into the City ; but, before doing
so, she distinctly told Stocken and others that
Mr. Bevan's base should not be taken out

of the stable where it wa., kept. No sooner was her
back turned, however, than Stocken, mounting the hack
of the horse, rode into the yard of Mr. Webb, livery •
stable-keeper, of Gray's Inn-lane, and, atter some nego-
tiation, he sold the horse to the plaintiff, under a forged
vvatrant.y ittet Mr; flit the trt of 154 The fol.
lowing day Mr. Bevan, being accompanied by a polide.
officer and other parties, proceeded to the plaintiff's
yard, caused the stable door to be forcibly opened, and
took away his horse. An action was then brought ; at
the trial of which nearly a dozen counsel were en-
gaged; and after many hard blows, and a good deal of
harder swearing, a verdict was given for the plaintiff,
with 251. damages.
Mr. tiergeant TALVOURD now moved on behalf of the
principal defendant, Mr. Bevan, fora rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be had, on the two
grounds of such verdict being against evidence, and
against the direction of the Learned Judge (Mr. Jugice
Erle) before whom the action was tried.
Mr. Sergeant CHAN NELL was proceeding to move on
behalf of the other defendants, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, interrupting the Learned
Counsel, said that the new trial must necessarily be fur
all the parties alleged to be aggrieved, and nut fur
.one only.

LAMBETH.—(THIS DAY.)
John Gay, a hay salesman, was charged by Police-
constable L 42 with being drunk and incapable of taking
l'itre_of his horse and gig, in the York-road, at half-past
ten o'clock last night. The prisoner was taken to the
station•house. and the horse and gig to the green-yard.
The prisoner denied being drunk, and said it was a
piece of impertinent interference on the part of the police
_to unbuckle the reins of his horse.

Henry Uttun, Police constable L 159, said the prisoner
was so drunk that he drove the horse o❑ the pavement,
and it was a great mercy that no serious accident occurred.
The prisoner replied that he should like to have the
police punished ; he only went into the Ordnance Arms
to obtain some refreshment, and on his return he f3und
the police in possession of his horse and gig. He had
1601. about his person, which he offered to leave at the
station-house provided that the police would restore the
horse and gig and permit him to go home.
Mr. HENRY said that instead of wishing to have the
police punished, the prisoner ought to be extremely
thankful for their care and kindness. He must pay five
&billings for being drunk, and his horse and gig would
be returned on payment of the green-yard expenses.

SOUTHWARK.—(THIS DAY.)
A well dressed cyprian named Jones, was charged
with robbing a gentleman named Edwards, residing in
the Commercial-road East, of a valuable watch.
When the sheet containing the charge was placed be-
fore the Magistrate, the policeman stated that the com-
plainant was not in attendance. The circumstances of
the alleged robbery were as follows :—Mr. Ed.
wards accompanied the prisoner to her lodg-
ings, and soon after his departure he missed
his watch, a valuable one. He then returned to
the house, but instead of going in he remained all
night watching for her in the street. When she came
out in the morning he went up and accused her of the
robbery, but she denied the charge, and he then gave
her into custody. The watch has not been found. The
complainant was perfectly sober at the time.
Mr. COTTINGIIA3I expressed considerable surprise at
the circumstance of the complainant not appearing, and
said tht.t he had no right to deprive the woman of her
liberty if he did not intend to appear against her. The
Magistrate added that he should remand the prisoner, in
order to insure the attendance of the loser of the watch.