The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-20 00:00:00

THIS

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(11,,,f0re Sir J. WIGRA3I).
EMPFIRINGEIAM P. SHORT.
This was a motion for a new trial upon the ground of de-
fective evidence; the case was before the Court in February
last upon exceptions, when the validity of a sale of pro-
perty, as between father and son, was impeached. His
Honour then directed two issues at common law to as-
certain whether the consideration had been paid, and
also, supposing that it had, whether the conveyances had
been executed on the part of the son to the end, pur-
pose, and intent, to delay, hinder, and defraud the plain-
_

tiff ; and also to ascertain whether certain moneys were
recoverable under a sequestration.
The arguments in the case were resumed this morning,
and on their concluding, his Honour said, before giving
any decision, he should wish to read over the notes of
the common law Judge, who heard the case on the
issues. He would, therefore, for the present, postpone
his judgment.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF EXCISE.
On the last day of last term a rule nisi for a mandamus
had been obtained by Mr. Hill, directed to the Com-
missioners of Excise, and commanding them to
show cause why they should not grant a
permit for two casks of spirits imported from
the Channel Islands.' The present application
was made in behalf of Mr. Brodie, a manufacturer
of spirits in Jersey, and he imported the spirits in ques-
tion for the purpose of trying the right of the Com-
missioners to withhold a permit to take them out
of the Government stores. The question was one
of very considerable importance, and the point to be
decided was whether spirits manufactured in Jersey from
materials, the growth of Jersey and the United King-
dom, should be permitted to enter into the dealer's stock,
after paying the countervailing duty of 7s. 10(1., though
~f a totally different strength and quality from what
British spirits would be allowed to enter it.
The Court were likely to be engaged with the argu-
ments on the case the whole day.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
THE QUEEN V. GILBERT.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a writ of habeas
corpus, to bring before the Court the bodies of two in.
rants, named Frances S. Gilbert and Joseph S. Gilbert,
the first five and the last seven years of age.
The application was made on behalf of the mother,
who, by the last will and testament of her husband, was
appointed sole guardian of the two children. Subse-
quently, however, the testator added a codicil to his will,
naming William Gilbert as co-guardian.
Mr. Justice WILLIA:NIS —ln whose custody are the
children now?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--In the custody of William
Gilbert and another person. The Learned Solicitor-
Geneial put in an affidavit of the mother's, stating, that
some time since she visited an uncle in Weybridge,
where she left the children, intending to return for them
at a subsequent period. She did so return, but the re-
possession of her children was positively refused to her.
The Learned Solicitor-General contended that the
mother was the proper person to have the custody of
the infants, inasmuch as the co-trustee, William Gilbert,
had a reversionary interest in the trusts of the infants.
The uncle would be entitled to certain property in the
event of their deaths; and therefore it was he moved for
the present writ.—Granted.
A number of undefended causes, most of them arising,
out of disputed bills of exchange, were heard, and ver-
dicts recorded for the plaintiffs, on the full amounts
claimed.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
GIBSON V. WILLS.

---
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover
the sum of 100/. on a bill of exchange ; in answer to
which the defendant had placed upon the record a num-
ber of pleas, averring that the bill was entrusted to the
plaintiff to get discounted, and alleging a breach of trust
on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. Platt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn
for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT stated that he was at a less to know how
defendant could make out his pleas. The first transac-
tion his client had with the defendant was a short time
previous to the acceptance of the bill in question ; the
defendant then requiring a sum of money which the
plaintiff procured for him, and a warrant of attorney
was given as security. Afterwards the defendant made
a second application to the plaintiff, stating that the
former sum was insufficient to satisfy his purposes, and
he asked for a second advance. The plaintiff procured
him the sum required, and took the bill in question as a
security for the amount. Ho should prove the hand-
writing of the bill of exchange, and it should then be for
the defendant's counsel to produce evidence to substan-
tiate the allegation of breach of trust.
The handwriting to the bill of exchange having been
proved,
Mr. COCKBURN stated that he had attended, at first,
fully prepared to go into the merits of the case, but
having since ascertained that his witnesses were not„ in
attendance, he had no alternative but to submit to a
verdict.—Verdict fur the plaintiff in the full sum.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
THE STAFFORD MURDER.
This morning the whole of the Juelges, with the ex-
ception of Mr. Baron Gurney, assembled in the Court
of Exchequer to consider the objection taken on the
trial of Paul Downing and Charles Powys, who were
convicted before Mr. Justice Coltman at Stafford, in
December last, of the wilful' murder of a person named
Clark, by shooting him with a gun. The prisoner
Powys is a mere lad, between 14 and 15 years of age,
and which objection was reserved for the consideration
of the Judges.
The Judges retired in their private room to consider
the objections raised, and after being absent some time,
the Lord Chief Baron, on entering the Court, intimated
that the opinions of the Judges would be sent to the pro-
per authorities.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
A young man of the name of Moriarty was charged
by policeman, F 24, with being drunk and disorderly.
The policeman stated that on Saturday evening about
six o'clock, being on duty in Drury-lane, he saw the
prisoner knock against a man with a box on his head.
The man was very angry, but witness did not hear
what passed between them. He saw prisoner strike the
man in the face, and he then went up to them and in-
terfered. The man would not charge prisoner, as he
said he could not attend against him. Prisoner was
drunk at the time, and when witness desired him to "go
on," he said he would not, and " dared him" to take him
in charge.
The prisoner stated that about two months ago he
reported policemen 24 and 73 of the F division to the
inspector. He was prevented from attending at the time,
and he was obliged to give up the charge, At about
six o'clock on Saturday evening he was passing through
Drury-lane, when a man with a box on his head knocked
against him. The man was about to apologise, when
the policeman 24 F came up and wanted to take prisoner
in charge. He stooped down to examine prisoner by
looking under his hat, and then he said, " I thought so;
it was you that reported. me to the inspector
some time ago. Why did you not press it
like a man ?" To which prisoner made no reply.
Prisoner then asked the man to go with him to the sta-
tion-house to prove that he (prisoner) had not interfered
with him. The man said he could not, as it would oc-
cupy his time more than he could afford. As soon as
the man was gone, the policeman said to the prisoner,
" Now you'd better go on, and not interrupt me in the
execution of my duty." Prisoner said he would be very
sorry to do any such thing, and went on. The police.
man followed him, however, and having overtaken him,
took him in charge, he did not know for what.
The constable, who seemed very uneasy during pri-
soner's statement, still insisted on the truth of his de-
position.
Prisoner said that the policeman, F 75, heard the
man's apology, and would state it if called.
Policeman, 75 F, was not at hand,
Prisoner said he did not know the man, nor did he
know where he could be found.
Mr. HALL said there was no evidence against what
the policeman had said, and therefore he must fine pri-
soner 2s. 6d.
Prisoner immediately paid the fine and left the Court.