The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-20 00:00:00

BRIANT V. EICKE.

The defendant in this case was an attorney, and
;he action was brought against him under these

emstances :—He had been the attorney in a canes
of " Noakes v. Lawrence," and, on a judgment
covered in that action, had sued out execution, under
which a levy was made by the Sheriff of Surrey. A
person named Humphreys afterwards set up a claim
to the goods seized, and the Sheriff therefore re-

fused fo sell without'an indtmnity on the part of
Noakes. The plaintiff, Briant, was a client of the
defendant, and the latter prevailed on him, under a
promise to save him harmless, to join Noakes in nit
indemnity bond to the sheriff, who then sold the
,nods, and paid over the proceeds for the use of
Noakes. Humphreys afterwards brought an action
against the Sheriffand recovered. The Sheriff then
called upon the plaintiff and Noakes to reimburse
him the amount of the debt and costs, and the plain-
tiff paid his share, amounting to upwards of 1731.
The present action, therefore, was brought to re-
cover that sum from the defendant on his promise
to save the plaintiff harmless from his liability under
the bond to the Sheriff.

The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 1731.

EDWARDS AND ANOTHER V. SCOTT.

This was an action against Mr. Robert Scott, the
engraver to the Post-office, as the acceptor of a bill
of exchange for 100/., dated the 29th of April, 1823 ;
drawn by Edward Sandwell. The plaintiffs surd,
As the executors of a Mrs. Margaret Edwards, the
endorsee of the bill.

Verdict feu• the plaintiffs—Damages (principal and
Interest) 1301.
At the rising of the Court, these sittings were
adjourned to the 25th inst.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 18.
OLDHAM V. EBORALL.

This was an issue from the Coutt of Chancery,
to try whether or not Elizabeth Oldham and her
,tistr, Mrs. Smith, were the co-heiresses of -
Oldham, deceased. The case involved the right to
70,000/. or 80,000/., and depended upon the ques-
tion whether or not John Oldham, of Coleshill, in
Warwickshire, was legally married to Elizabeth Sto-
neyhitrst, in 1712. The Jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiffs.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jutr IS.

IN THE MATTER OF A SLAVE NAMED FANNY FORD.

This was an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty
Court of St. Kitt's, in a prosecution under the
Slave Acts. The slave in question was the pro-
perty of Mr. Ford, of St. Kitt's, and being a wild,
unmanageable child, he bad been in the habit of
sending her backwards and forwards to the Dutch
Colony of Saba, for education there. She was
brought back for the last time in 1818 or 1820.
Mr. Ford died, and the slave became the property of
another. In 1827, an information was laid by a
waiter of the customs of St. Kitt's, on the ground
that the conveyance of this slave was an exportation,
in violation of the Act 5 Geo. IV., c. 13, sect. 47.
The Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court held the
same opinion, and pronounced the slave forfeited.—
No appearance was given for the respondent in this
Court, his Majesty's Advocate declining to sustain
the judgment.
Sir C. ROBINSON said, with all respect for the
Court below, it was his duty to reverse its sen-
tence. He should order the costs given in that
Court to be repaid ; but gave no costs in this Court.