The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-03 00:00:00

GREEN V. ELGY AND TOULMIN.

This was.-ri;tction brought to recover damages
for false imprisonment, which had been tried
before Mr. Justice Coleridge at Westminster, the
sittings after last term. The Jury found a verdict
for defendant Elgy, and for plaintiff against defen-
dant Toulmin, with 1501. damages.
Mr. PLATT applied for a rule nisi to enter a ver-
dict for the defendant Toulmin, and for a new trial.
The plaintiff against whom a fiat of bankruptcy had
been issued, was apprehended on a warrant issued on
the application of Elgy, by the Court of Review, for
contempt of that court, and on that warrant he was taken
and imprisoned in the Fleet ; Toulmin, who was
the London agent of Elgy, the country solicitor in
the causes having handed the warrant to the tipstaff,
and thus having caused his imprisonment. It appeared
that the warrant had subsequently turned out to be a
void one. Mr. Platt contended that Toulmin had
acted as the agent of Elgy, and that the warrant was
a sufficient authority for Toulmin for what he had
done. He also contended that the warrant was a
good warrant, and sufficient to justify the imprisonment.
The Learned Judge before whom the plaintiff had
been brought by a writ of habeas, had released him,
because the warrant did not sufficiently state the na-
ture of the contempt, or define the term of imprison-
ment. The Learned Counsel contended, upon the au-
thority of the warrant of the house of Commons, in
the case of the Sheriff of Middlesex, that it was unne-
cessary to state either the nature of the contempt or
the term of the imprisonment in warrants of commit-
tal for contempt, and that therefore the warrant was a
good one, and on those grounds he moved for his rule.
Lord DENMAN—Take a rule.—Rule nisi granted.
MANDAMUS.—THE QUEEN V. TILE TOWN COUNCIL OF

STAMroRD.
Mr. WADDINGTON appeared on behalf of Mr. Tork-
ington, the Clerk of the Peace for the borough of
Stamford, for a mandamus, calling upon the Mayor
and Town Council of the borough of Stamford to
award compensation to him (Mr. Torkington) for the
loss of the office of Clerk to the Justices of the borough,
of which he had been deprived under the provisions
of the Municipal Corporation Act. The applicant
had in 1820 been appointed Clerk of the Peace,
Town
Clerk, and Clerk to the Justices of the
borough of Stamford, and had performed the duties
of those offices up to the time of the passing the Muni-
cipal Corporation Act in 1835. He had by the
Council been re-elected to the offices of Lown
Clerk and Clerk of the Peace, and had con-
sequently, by the provisions of the Act, been
incapacitated from holding the office of Clerk
to the Justices. A separate Commission had been
subsequently granted to the borough, and another
gentleman had been appointed Clerk to the Justices,
and had executed the duties, and received the emolu-
ments of the office ever since. Mr. Torkington had
applied to the Town Council to award him compensa-
tion, and the Council had refused to award him any
compensation whatever. He had then applied to the
Lords of the Treasury, and had in July last been in-
formed by their Lordships that the Law Officers of
the Crown had advised them that in consequence of a
decision in this Court they had no jurisdiction in the
case. Under these circumstsnces he moved for the
mandamus, on the authority of the Warwick, Sand-
wich, and Bridgwater cases.
The COURT granted the application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2.
The Lord Chief Justice, with Justices Coltman,
Maule, and Erskine, came into Court about half past
on? o'clock.
PARKER V. 110PKINS.—TITIIES.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated that this was an
action :brought under the Tithe Commutation Act
(England and Wales) to vt aside an award made
by the Commissioners of Tithe Commutation. The
Act' provided
.that when ( Lher party was dissa-
tisfied with an award of the Commis ;lours for

an amount exceeding 30/., the parties so
dissatisfied might bring the matter before any of her
Majesty's Courts of Law at Westminster, provided
the writ of summons be issued within one month from
the date of the award complained of. In the present
case two days had been allowed to elapse, and the
Learned Sergeant applied for a rule nisi to enlarge the
time.—Rule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 2.
Mr. Justice PATTESON took his seat on the Bench
at about half-past one o'clock.
FORD V. THE HON. GEORGE FOLEY.
Mr. UDELL in this case moved for the enlargement
of a rule granted last term, to postpone a trial in con-
sequence of the absence of some necessary witnesses.
The action was for 1,0001., and the money was
lodged in Court by the defendant. The application
was founded upon affidavits, which stated that sub-
poenas were endeavoured to be served on the wit-
nesses, but they were kept out of the way ; and it
sought to have the rule enlarged for the purpose of
serving the subpoenas.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule to show cause.

COURT of EXCHEQUER, Nov. 2.

Lord Abinger,- the Chief Baron, and the other
Judges of the Court, took their seats on the bench
shortly after one o'clock.

JONES V. JONES.

In this case Sir John Bailey moved for a rule to
show cause why the peremptory undertaking should
not be enlarged and proceedings staid. It appeared that
in Easter term the defendant had been discharged
on a peremptory undertaking to try the case at the
last assizes for Cardigan. The plaintiti had given
notice to try, but in consequence of the illness of a
witnessaof the name of Jones, he countermanded the
notice. He further stated, that since that time the
witness Jones had died, and that he was ready to pro-
ceed to trial at the next assizes, if their Lordships
should grant the present

The COURT—Take a rule to shOw cause.
BANKER AND OTHERS V. BURDIKAN.

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule in this case to show
cause why the verdict of the Jury in this case should
not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial
had, or why, at all events, the sum should not be re-
duced to the amount brought into Court.
The plaintiffs were the assignees of the Messrs.
Potter, the extensive cotton-manufacturers of Man-
chester, and the defendant represented the Man-
chester Bank. The case had been tried at
Liverpool at the last Assizes, before Mr. Justice
Manic, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff; in
the sum of 15,0001. The action had been brought
in pursuance of an interpleader rule, which was be-
fore the Court in Michaelmas term last. A fiat
of bankruptcy had been issued against the
Messrs. Potter; but it was necessary to show that
an act of bankruptcy had been committed by each
of the three Potters previous to the issuing of the fiat.
The Learned Counsel now contended that no evi-
dence had been produced to that effect. With
regard to James Potter, there could be no doubt but
that he had committed various acts of bankruptcy. It
appeared that with regard to Richard Potter there had
been an execution against him in August, 1841, and
that on the day following he had left Manchester
for Ipswich, where he went to visit a son
of his, a clergyman. It had been contended by the
assignees, that he had thus committed an act of
bankruptcy ; but the Jury upon the trial found
that this was not an act of bankruptcy, and
negatived the plea. It further appeared, how-•
ever, that Richard Potter had, on the Bth of Sept.,
1841, executed a deedAand it was upon the validity of
that execution that the present question rested. It
was a deed of assignment, the language of which
was couched to convey a joint property of part-
nership, but it had never been executed by
James Potter previous to the fiat. The Learned
Counsel now contended that the deed could not be
executed by one only of the parties ; and it was on
this ground that the present application was made.
The COURT, after some deliberation granted a rule
to show cause.