The Sun.
London, England, 1816-07-19 00:00:00

ROBSON V. ANDRADE.

.
The plaintiff declared in an action Or money
bail and received by the defendant to his use, and
the case appeared to be this :—A person named
Goldlom, who hail been a subscriber at Lloyd's
Catiee-house, having lust 8001. by wager'polieies
for time .tO different persons, a friend of his depo-
sited 1001. in the hands of the defendant, who
war one of Goldham's creditors under the above-
nientioned loss, in order to be divided kitOilkuot
parts amongst his.ereilit ors, in proportion to their
reipeetive debts—the defendant, the plaintiff, and
a person named Thamas.Stnethitrit, being of, that
number. _ -

Pen objection Wits taken in lineine by the ATTOE..
142Y-GENEUAL and Mr. (URNEY, as Counsel fot
the defendant, to the plaintiff's right of action,
inasmuch as the debt was contracted in a gambling
transactionl but
Lord ELLENSIOROTIGH overruled the objection,
upon the authority of neekney Renouse, in
the Term Reports ; and Petre v. Hallen, in 3 Burr.
Upon further investigation of the case it ap-
peared, that besides the above.narned creditors of
Guinan), there were two other persons, named
Gabriel Jacob and Joshua Davis, who had also a
claim upon the 1001. lodged in the hands of the
defendant. There was, however, no satisfactory
evidence given of the exact amount of these per-
sons' demands ; and
Lord IFALaNioaouou held, that as the defendant
stood in he situation of an assignee to Goldham,
and as be had never adjudicated upon the amount
of each t:erson's claim, the plaintiff could not main-
tain his action for a specific liquidated sum, there
being other persons whose claims were unsscer-
tained, hut who had a right to some portion of
the 1001. and for which the defendant would. he
liable to them. His Lordship therefore nonettited
the plaintitf, but gave him leave to move to enter
a verdict in case the' nonsuit should be wrong.
The like result' took place in another action
against the same defendant, brought by another
creditor of Goldhatn.

COURT, OF COMMON PLEAS, TULT is:
CURIOUS CASE OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

ICTUBLR V. WOOD.

This was an action against the Lord Mayor to
recover damages for' false ittrprisonment. The
plaintiff was a journeyman sugar-baker, anti was
engaged by his` employer for the term of: twelve
months, at a certain rate of wages,, to which an
addition was to be made of 108.. a week for board.
The plaintiff and three others, atter their engage-
ment, demanded an increase of 2s. upon the latter
sum ; and on being refused, left the work upon
-which they. were employed unfintilked. On being
taken into custody, and carried before the Lord
Mayor, they were convicted of the offence, and
sentenced to one month's imprisonment, according
to the provisions of the Act of 29 GM 111, c. 19;

The present Palmn was grouttiled-,Upon an Woe.,
mality in the commitment. The Act etnpna:ert
any single Justice to commit the offender in eases -
of thii description " to the house of correction,
there to remain and be corrected, and held to hard
labot*tr,- for
any time not.exceeding one calendar
month." In. this case, the commitment- did not
express, the words in the clause, " and be cor-
rected ; and the question was, Whether the tom.
mitment was so far vitiated by the omission as to
render the defendant liable to the liresent action,
Mr. Serjeant Bess, for the plaintiff, contended
that all commitments grounded On'aCts of PAN
liament must be conformable to the methodthera.
in prescribed. This was, a principle which had
been established by a variety of decisions, and 1.11s4;.
words of the act in question were peremptorY; and
left no -foam for distinction.
The SOLICITOR-GF.NEKAL observed, that it WAS,
impossible the legislature could have. ever meant..
to deprive the Mogist rate of the discretion to
abate and modify the punishment, according to
the circuMstances Of the offence, within the posi4
tive limits which was prescribed,. The mortis
" and to be corrected" probably referrea to the
general correction. of manners which the °thee
pate of the inmishment was intended to produce.:
Mr. Sedeant BesT cited a case from EAsett
Re tarts, in which it had been ruled by the Court
of King's Bench,_ that the win;ds of the Act im-
plied the corporal castigation of %rhinping.
The SOLICITOR-GSNERAL said, if such was the
settled construction of the ckuse, he could only
trust that, on a complaint of this nature, the
Jury wolkld think. the smallest start' that could bo
issued bylhis Majesty's mint would' furnish ample
compensation for any injury which the plaint Wised
received.

The CHIEF JUSTICE agreed with the
General* that the decision of the Conrt of King's'
Bench, of which he had not been aware, allot
necessarily operate to send this Auestion. to the
Jury. His original doubt had been, Whether the
warrant might nut be amended so as to give the
plaintiff the full benefit of the Act, of which bed-
Tient he- complained that he had been deprived.-•
The Jury would deal with the case us they thought
a matter•of this nature deserved.—Verdiet fur the
plaintiff, damages one farthing.

,PREROGATiVE-COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS.

tIANNE,AS AGAINST THIS RIGHT HON. MARY tOVEN4

TRY; COMMONLY CALLRD LADY MARY DERR..

HURST.

This was a ph:weeding on the part of Miss
Laura Manners, the executrix of the late DischvSt
of St. Albans, who was executrix of the latelDuke
of •.St. Albans, for the purpose of proving, his
GraCe's will, which was opposed by Lady Der
burst , his Grace's daughterby a former 4 ife, who
took no benefi.t tinder It. By the will, Which way
dated' the 18th July 1814, his Grace licqueathed
the whole of his property; real and pet tonal;
unto or in trust for the Duchess, dechirina, that
Lady Deerburst had a very ample rrov:siair
under the marriage-settlement of hermialier,
which be did not deem it necessary to make
atry
addition.. His Grace had executed a will in the
month of 'May, 1812, of nearly the same pur:orG,
One'of the subscribing witnesses to that will bad'
left his service ; and he being a ppie beoef, e rim!
his will :would he disputed by Lord and LailT
tleerlthrst caused it to be re-copied fur execution'-
with some inconsiderable alteratiims, and exer"t#
ed it aceordinglylm the:lBth of .1,, y 'lBl4. Ihe
instructions for this will by the Duke, and di..,
necessary formalities of its execution, vt ete tor
proved-by the three attesting witnesses, awl 114
Court therefore pronounced in favourof its 'is,