The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-28 00:00:00

OTHERS.

Their Lordships will sit to-morrow and Saturday, and
on the 4th, sth, 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th, and 14th of Decem-
ber. The Master of the Rolls will preside on all these
occasions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.L.(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins; before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Common Jury.)
GARDNER V. MAJOR.
The plaintiff in this case is a butcher, carrying on
business in Portland-market, and the defendant is pro-
prietor of the mat ket. The plaintiff rented a shed as a
stable of defendant, at. a weekly rent of 35., and on the
6th of January, this year, a portion of the shed was
pulled down, and the demolition of it was completed
on Wednesday, the 9th, the defendant's term not ex-
piring until the Saturday following. To recover damages
for this trespass the present *action had been brought, to
which defendant pleaded not guilty. The "hole ques-
tion, therefore, for the jury to ch tide was, had the demo-
lition taken place in consequence of the defendant's
orders.

There was a great deal of conflicting testimony, and
the jury ultimately found for the plaintiff—damages, One
Farthing.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.

CADERIX V. LITTLE.
The plaintiffis the occupier of a house in the Hackney-
road, of which he holds the btn6cial lease. The houses
in the road, of which his forms a part, have gardens in
front of them. But the defendant, who is a timber mer-
chant, having taken the premises. adjoining the plaintiff's,
converted the front garden into a timber-yard, and so piler!
up the timber, as to shut out altogether from the plaintiff's
windows the lateral view, in one direction, which was
before enjoyed from them. This action was brought to
recover damages for the deterioration of the property
by this interruption of the view, and for the obstructiob
of light a'id air. The defence was that there had been
no injury to the property, and 'no obstruction of light
and air. The evidence was lengthened and extraordi-
nary, the plaintiff's witnesses maintaining that the pro-
perty was materially injured, and the defendant's as
positively averring the contrary.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF BARON,
and a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY• GENERAL V. CANDY.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DEAN.
In this case the Solicitor-General, Mr. Jervis, and Mr.
Wilde were fur the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins, Mr.
Chambers, and Mr. James for the defence.
It was an information filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General against the defendants, for yimporting a
quantity of silks without paying the duty.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said it had been agreed that
the jury should find the single value of the silks at
1,4111., and give a verdict for that amount.
Verdict accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CANDY.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DEAN.
In these cases it was agreed that the jury should re-
turn a verdict for the single value of 848/. Bs.
Verdict accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CANDY.
TILE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. DEAN.
In these cases it was agreed that the jury should re-
turn:a verdict for the single value of 2,016/.
Verdict accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CANDY.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DEAN.
In these cases it was agreed that the jury should re-
turn a verdict for the single value of 300/.
Verdict accordingly.

CONSISTORY COURT.
(it HIS DAY.)
The Court opened this morning "pro forma, at the
usual hour, but owing to the severe indisposition of Sir
Herbert Jenner Fust, who was unable t 9 attend, it was
in consequence ordered to stand adjourned till the next
Court day.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON, &c.)
Timothy Conner, a labourer, aged 29, was indicted for
a rape on Ann Bolen. The offence was proved, and the
prisoner sentenced to transportation for life.
The prisoner struck the front of the dock, and ex-
claimed with great vehemence--" All I can say agin it
is, that I'm as innocent as that board."

NEW COURT.
GROSS DEPRAVITY BY A SERVANT.—Ann
aged 23, was indicted upon two separate indictments, the
first charging her with stealing one sovereign, the pro-
pearty of Leah Aarons, and the second with unlawfully,
by fraud, enticing away Julia Silva, aged about ten, and
under eleven years, with intent deprive the parents of
the lawful care of such child.
The case disclosed as disgusting and gross a case of
villany on the part of the prisoner as could well be ima-
gined, there being no doubt that the poor child was taken
away for the most horrible purposes.
It appeared by the evidence, Which has already ap-
peared at great length in our police reports, that the pri-
soner was in the service of the child's father, Mr. Silva,
and Leah Aarons was her fellow-servant, in whose box
was placed a sovereign and some silver, the former of
which the prisoner stole by breaking the lock. No doubt
could be entertained but the object she had in view in
taking the money was to promote, more successfully, her
abominable designs upon the child Julia Silva, whom
she induced the next day to go out for a walk,
when, after buying her some cakes and other
trifling things, she placed her in a cab and
and caused her to be driven to Charles-zourt, in the
Strand, a locality well known as the resort of the most
profligate and infamous characters. The poor child re-
coained there sonic time in one of the common brothels
in that court, when she found an opportunity of writing
privately to inform her sister, who at once came, and for-
tunately took her aivay before she was subjected to any
ill-usage.
Evidence was gone into at greet length to establish
the preceding facts, after which the Learned Common
Sergeant summed up; and the jury, without a moment's
hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty.

This case came before their Lordships upon appeal
from the decree of the Court of Sudder Dewa.nny
Adawlut, in• Bombay. The parties to the appeal are the
members of a joint, undivided Hindoo family, the
subject in dispute being the right of the respon-
dents on a partition of the jointly-acquired pro-
perty of three brothers, the sons of the common
ancestor of the appellants and respondents, to five
shares of certain property valued at 12,006 rupees, and
to two shares of one-sixth of cafe. r property estimated
at 7,486 rupees. Certain proceedings took place in the
Courts of Bombay, both parties adduced evidence oral
and documentary, and on the 16th of November,
1827, Mr. E. Grant, the Judge of the Zilla
Court of hairs, referred the suit to a native court of
arbitration. Shortly after the reference Mr. Grant was
transferred to the Zilla Court of Ahmedabad, and was
succeeded by a Mr 8,11. The arbitrators made their
award. Further proceedings then took place, and the
final decree was pronounced, from which the
present appeal was brought—on the ground
principlly that Mr. Grant, the Zillah Judge of
Ahmedabad, had dealt with the cause in a manner so
culpably partial, and so contrary to geod faith, that
no weight was due to his decree, or the proceedings
on which it was founded, and also because the decree of
the Sudder Adawlut was pronounced upon a record of
proceedings which Mr. Grant, the Zillah Judge, had de-
signedly rendered imperfect and inaccurate, and was
founded on the weight supposed to be dues to the prior
proceedings, which were not entitled to credit.
Mr. Loftus Wigram and Mr. C. It. M. Jackson ap-
peared as Counsel for the appellants ; and Mr. Burge,
Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Moore were in support of the judg-
ment of the Court below.
Mr. Loftus Wigram this morning opened the case
on the part of the appellants, and the case appears likely
to occupy their Lordships the whole of to-day, and the
greater part of to morrow.