The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. i;-''' '
Ae,
,_
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov 48. ' ,
(Sittings in Banco.) ~
'ile Court having disposed of the special:Orr
proceeded to hear cases on the new trial paper. ci
lIALL V. FEARNLEY. _

This was an action brought to recover damages
for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the
plaintiff in consequence of the cart of the defendant
having been driven over the plaintiff's leg and broken
it. The defendant had pleaded not guilty, and at the
trial it had been attempted to be proved that the
plaintiff had accidently slipped off the curb-stone
and fallen underneath the wheel of the cart, which
was passing at the time. Mr. Justice Wightman,
who tried the cause, told the Jury that if they were
of opinion that the injury the plaintiff had sustained
was the result of unavoidable accident, they, must
find for the defendant. The Jury being of that
opinion, returned a verdict for the defendant. Mr.
Crowder subsequently obtained a rule nisi for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection, alleging that as
the defendant had not put a plea of justification on
the record, it was not competent for him to raise the
question of accident at the trial.
Mr. KNOWLES, to-day, showed cause against the
rule.

The COURT ordered the rule for a new trial to be
made absolute.

VERTET V. RUSSELL.

This was an action brought by a physician to re-
cover a sum of money 'alleged to be due from the
defendant, a lady, for plaintiff's medical attendance
on her brother. At the trial it had been admitted
that a physician could not recover his fees by ac-
tion, but it was alleged, that in the present instance,
there had been a special contract, in proof of which
several letters were put in in evidence. The Jury re-
turned a verdict for defendant. The Attorney-Gene-
ral subsequently obtained a rule nisi for a new trial,
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.
The COURT, having heard 31r. Thesiger, Mr. War-
ren, and Mr. Bovill against the rule ; and the At
torney-General and Mr. Peacock in support of it, or-•
dered the rule to be discharged.
In the cases of Hayes v. Cufield, the Queen t,.
Binney, and Johnson v. Wood, rules nisi for Thew
trials were granted ; and in Johnson v. Wood , and
Drake v. Harmer, no rules were granted.

BAIL COURT, N0v.28.
GREENSILL V. JONES.

The plaintiffs in this action are lamp manu-
facturers, and the defendant is a, gas-fitter. It ap-
peared that the defendant had 3 contract for the ar-
rangement of the gas apparatus of Drury-lane theatre,
under the London Gas Company, but not being ready
upon the opening of the theatre after last Christmas,
he came to the plaintiffs and asked them to send some
lamps for the saloon of Drury-lane, to which Mr.
Greensil replied that he did not like to have anything
to do with theatres. Upon an observation, however,
made by Mr. Jones, the lamps were sent and put up,
and for the hire of them the present ration was
brought. The damages were laid at 122?,. 4s. 6d.
Witnesses were called on the part of the plaintiff,
who proved that the defendant orcle'..ed the lamps, and
upon the plaintiff saying he did trot wish to have any-
thing to do with theatres, the o,efendant said he would
pay for them himself ; or in case that the managers of
the theatre did not pay
for them that he (the defend-
ant) would then do so,

It was denied on the part of the defendant that
Mr. Jones said Ith would pay for the hire of the lamps,
and that Mr, llaeready or the London Gas Company
ought to lave been sued.
The. 'Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 28.
lIITCHMAN V. MONTEFIORE, KNT., AND OTHERS.

This was an action against the Sheriffs of Middle-
sex for refusing to levy against the goods of one
James Pett.

Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. White were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Bompas for the Sheriffs.
In the year 1834, James Pett, a builder at Hamp-
stead, wishing to compound with his creditors, bor-
rowed the sum of 4001. from the plaintiff in this action,
a gentleman of fortune, for that purpose. Subse-
quently to this, the plaintiff being unable to obtain his
money, brought an action against Pett for the recovery
of the amount, and obtained a verdict. Judgment
was entered ; but, in the meantime, a fiat in bank-
ruptcy had been issued against Pett, and, therefore,
the Sheriffs declined to levy his goods, on the ground
that they Nvere the property of his assignees. The
plaintiff had, therefore, commenced an action against
the Sheriffs in 1837, which had remained over till the
present time, and now came on for trial. The ground
upon which the action was brought was, that there
was no good petitioning creditor's debt. It was alleged
on the part of the plaintiff that the petitioning credi-
tor against Pett had issued the fiat merely for the
purpose of getting rid of the plaintiff's claim. Evi-
dence was attempted to be shown that the petitioning
creditor, Mr. Walton, a timber-merchant, had ad-
vised the other creditors to take a composition of
6s. 9d. in the pound in the year 1834, and that the
claim under the bankruptcy was part of that com-
pounding. This evidence was, however, considered
not legal, and it was, therefore, not admitted.
Mr. James Pett was called, and a long argument

took place as to whether he could be admitted as a
witness against his own bankruptcy. Mr. Justice
Cresswell held that he could. He was about to be
sworn, when he addressed his Lordship, and said he
wished to know how he was to be paid for his
attendance.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he supposed he would
be paid in the usual way, and whatever was proper.
The attorney said he would see him paid.
Mr. Pett said he had attended last term seven days,
and then he could not get a farthing from the
solicitor, and he did not know why he should trust
him again. He should
.decline being sworn until he

had been paid.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL consulted with the officer
of the Court, and ordered the witness to be paid 30s.
for his two days' attendance. He was then sworn.
Ills evidence merely went to show that his debt to
the petitioning creditor was more than 1001.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he thought there was
no case for the Jury. The case was one of great
difficulty. The allegations on the part of the plaintiff
were extremely difficult of proof, and out of which
many complicated points of law would arise. As the
matter at present stood no case had been made out
by the plaintiff, and his allegations were entirely
without proof. A verdict must therefore be taken
for the defendants.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 28.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THUREY.
This was a revenue case ; but, immediately after
the Jury had been sworn in, the Attorney-General
announced that an arrangement had been come to be-
tween counseqon both sides, to the effect that a ver-
dict for the sum of 9001. should be entered for the
Crown. This verdict was accordingly returned.
WORRILL V. JENKINS.
This was an action brought to recover the amount
due upon a promissory note of 201. It appeared that
a person of the name of Cooke had applied to the
Marylebone Joint-Stock Discount and Loan Com-
pany, for a loan in the commencement of the year
1841. The sum of 191. was advanced to him by the
Company, upon his giving the present promissory
note, for the payment of which three persons, of the
names of Thwaites, Pollyblanke, and Jenkins, the
defendant in this case, made themselves sureties. The
note was made payable on demand to Messrs. Deakes
and Sodon, the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of
1 the Company ; but it seemed that there had been an
understanding between the parties, according to the
usual mode in which the Company transacted busi-
ness, that the amount might be paid in instalments.
Immediately after the present defendant had signed
his name us a surety, he found he had reason to think
that Cooke was in embarrassed circumstances ; upon
, the amount of which
which be proceeded to the office of the Company, arid
informed the Chairman that he wished to have his
removedbeen
fromn paid the.
no
Notwithstanding this notice,
however, Cooke afterwards received the amount. Two
nhaad med
not then b
instalments of eight shillings each had been paid by
Cooke ; but as he became unable to meet any portion
of the remainder, application was made to the three
sureties, and Pollyblanke paid to the Company the
sum of 101. The sum of 91. 4s. then remaining due
upon it, it passed from the Company into the hands
of the present plaintiff. The defendant now pleaded
that there had been no consideration for the note paid
by the plaintiff, and that the defendant could not be
made liable, inasmuch as he had given' notice before
the note had been cashed, that he would not be a surety
for its payment.
Mr. Barnard, one of the two attorneys fo the
Company, stated in evidence that the note had been
put into his hands by his employers, in order that he
might take proceedings to recover the amount. Be-
fore any proceedings were taken by him, the note
had been given to sir. Chapple, the other attorney of
1 the Company, who also acted as attorney for the
plaintiff in the present case.
Mr. Deakes, the Chairman ;of the Company, de-
posed to Mr. Jenkins, the defendant in this case,
calling at the office of the Company, and giving notice
that he wished to withdraw his name from the note,
the amount of which had not then been paid. Wit-
ness refused to allow him to take any step
in the matter, as the note was drawn up and the
names of the sureties attached to it. The note was
dated in the month of February, 1841, and had
passed from the hands of the solicitor of the Com-
pany into those of the present plaintiff at the latter
end of that year. Witness did not know what con-
sideration the plaintiff might have given for the note._
No further evidence was Produced, the Learned.
Counsol for the defendant contending that it zee
dent that his client could not be made resPctil-1
for
dn.
the payment of the note after the notic secondl give
y, t
of the withdrawal of his name; and,

i~