The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

WATERS C. THE EARL OF THANET.
The COURT gave judgment in this case, which was an
action upon two bills of exchange drawn in 1801 at
three months' date, and accepted by the defendant. Pre-
vitiusfy to the bills becoming clue the defendant
gave a written promise to the plaintiff to pay the bills
.wheniie , was of ability to do so, and in consideration
of not .being then pressed for payment, undertook not to
avail himself of the statute of limitationS. In 1835 the
defendant succeeded to the title and estates of the Earl
of Thanet, but the plaintiff being abroad, was not made
aware of it for seven or eight years -afterwards. At
the trial the defendant pleaded the statute of limita-
tions, and the Jury, found a verdict for the plaintiff for
-the amount claimed. A rule for nonsuit was
subsequently obtained on the ground that the statute of
-limitations began to run from the time the defendant was
of ability to pay. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff,
that the right of action did not accrue until a demand
' was made. The defendant in the present ease was of
ability to pay in 1825, but it was argued that the
plaintiff did not know of it till within six years
before the action was brought. As a general rule,
it might be assumed that the knowledge of a debtor's
ability was locked up in his own breast ; but there was
generally: some evidence from outward appearances
which would lead the creditor to infer his circumstances.
Where a debtor promised to pay when able, the cre-
ditor must be supposed to be on the watch.
The period, however, from which . that must be com-
puted was the time when the fact took place, and not
the time when the creditor became acquainted with it.
For these reasons the Court was of opinion that the de-
fendant was -entitled to the nonsuit claimed by him on
account of the action not being brought before the ex-
piration of six years after the defendant became of ability
to Pay.—JUdgment for the defendant.
GREEN V. MURRAY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the sum of 600/., being the value of a Metropolitan Wood
Paving Share. The case was tried before Lord Denman
at the sittings after last term, and the plaintiff nonsuited
on the ground that no demand had been made by the
plaintiff before bringing his action. A rule to set aside
the nonsuit and for a new trial was subsequently obtained
by ISIr. Warren, on the ground that no previous demand
was necessary in a case like the present.
The COURT was of opinion that the duty cast upon
the defendant, was not like the duty cast upon a person
to pay a surn of money,- for that was what all persons
ought to do when indebted: It might be extremely in-
convenient to transfer a share, or other matter of that
description, at any time, and the demand was, in the
opinion of -the Court, a necessary part of the plaintiff
case. In the present case, the demand was not for the
transfer of the share, but for the payment of its valuein
Money, in consequence of its being sold. The rule,
therefore, for a new trial must be discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BEI,CHRTC-V. CAPPER.
This is an action on a policy of insurance. The Court
was occupied the whole of the day, and part of Wednes-
day, in hearing the arguments on demurrer to the repli-
cation. The argument was wholly destitute of popular
interest.

BAIL COUKT.-(THIS DAY.)

EX PARTE .BARNARD CAVANAGII.
Mr: JAMES was heard this morning in support of the
rule for bringing up the body of Barnard Cavanagh by
writ of habeas corpus, in reply to the Solicitor-General
and Mr. Cowling, who were yesterday heard against
the rule. The Learned Counsel submitted that it
was the form of commitment only that the
Court could adjudicate on,- as _that was the only duet).-
meet of which the Court had. cognizance, and thati. inaa-
much as that commitment was bad upon the face of 'it,
the writ of habeas must issue to bring up the man.
Mr. Justice WILLIA.MS—It ought to go to the gaoler.
It was yesterday stated that it was to the Magistrate
the rule was directed.
Mr. JAMES said that it was quite a mistake on
the part of his Learned Friend' to imagine any such
thing. It was directed to the gaoler, and as a
matter of courtesy,act;ta had been served on the com-
mitting Magistrate,,afidlie had chosen to appear. He
would submit, dint Ore Only document which would in-
i form either the Court or the prisoner of the cause of
offence for what he was committed was the commitment.
It was in fact well *flown that in such cases the conviction
was seldom drawn up at all, unless appealed against, and
then it was drawn up after the grounds of appeal became
.known, and he ought to meet those grounds. The com-
, mitment was the only document to which. the prisoner
could look for information ; and, therefore, it was the
only document to which the Court could look on
the return to. the habeas. When a prisoner was
in custody, he had a right, under the Habeas
Corpus Act, to demand from the gaoler a copy of
.the commitment, and that was the only means he had
of knowing why he was detained in custody. A copy
of the conviction was not furnished to the gaoler, and in
all cases of a return to a writ of habeas corpus the
gaoler had invariably returned the commitment as the
authority under which the prisoner was detained in cus-
tody. He knew nothing of the conviction which
when drawn up at all was returned to the Quar-
ter Sessions, and not given to the gaoler. Now in all
the cases to which he had alluded, when he
moved for the rule, it had been laid down that a com-
mitment in execution must specify, with the same accu-
racy as an indictment, the character of the offence for
which the individual was committed. The cases of com-
mitments by the House of Commons for contempt, to
which allusion had been made yesterday, had been de-
cided upon tt totally different principle; but even in those
instances the writ of habeas had been granted, and
on the return to the writ when the goaler
showed that the commitment was by the House
of Commons for contempt, the Court decided that that
was sufficient, as the House of Commons was competent
to [lam:nine what was or what was not a contempt of its
authority. 134 the writ of habeas was granted even in
these cases. In fact it was th►i sqllject'a right ex dpbito
justiciw. The question was, was the offence as set
forth in the commitment a sufficient ground for
detoiailig the prisoner in custody or not? It wa