The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-17 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF - HAMMOND.

Mr. Sergeant DOWLING obtained a rule nisi for the
discharge of the defendant, who had been imprisoned
on a criminal charge made by his own daughter. The
Learned Gentleman now moved that the rule be made
absolute upon giving bail.
His LORDSIIIP, having read the affidavits, granted
the application, the prisoner giving hail, himself in
2001. and four sureties in 50/. each.

IN THE MATTER. OF THE REV. DR. DILT.ON.
Mr. MILLAR stated that several parties were pre-
sent to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus ob-
tained in this case. He was, however, unable to serve
the writ on the principal party, Dr. Dillon, himself.
The returns of Mr. Goodyear, and others, were then
read, but not being in the proper form they were
amended, and all the parties stated that the child was
not, at the time of the service of the writ, in their
power, nor did they know anything about her.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Then you must be satisfied
Mr. Millar.

Mr. MILLAR—I suppose so, for the present, my
Lord.

SLATE V. THE EARL OP WALDEGRAVE.

In this case, which was reported a few days ago in
The Sun, Mr. PEACOCK moved for a distringas to pro-
ceed to outlawry against the defendant, which was
refused, on the ground that a distringas to proceed to
outlawry would not lie where the party was not liable
to a capias, and the Court on that occasion expressed
a doubt whether a distringas to compel an appearance
could be granted, unless the affidavit set forth that the
party had kept out of the way to avoid service.
After the case had been argued at some length, Mr.
Justice PATTESON said, under these circumstances you
may have a distringas to compel an appearance.

COURT OF .EXCHEQUER, Nov. 16.
The Court proceeded this morning with the special
paper.

MEDINA V. NORMAN.

This was a deMurrer to a plea. The declaration of
the plaintiff stated that he hat entered into an agree-
ment with the defendant to let to him on lease a house
in Fitzroy-square, the property of the plaintiff, at a
rent of 1361. a-year. The lease was to have been given
by the plaintiff, according to the terms of the agree-
ment, on or before the 24th June, 1841. Some mis-
understanding, however, arose between the parties,
and the plaintiff then proceeded to institute an action
to compel the defendant to execute his contract. To
the declaration of the plaintiff, defendant put in a plea
to the effect that plaintiff was not ready to execute the
lease upon the terms agreed upon, without specifying
the precise condition which the plaintiff had refused to
fulfil.
Mr. MARTIN now objected, on the part of the plain-
tiff, to this plea, on the ground that it should have
beenless general, and should have stated the particular
condition with which the plaintiff had refused to
comply.
The COURT, after hearing the argument of the
Learned Counsel, decided that the plaintiff himself
should have been more specific in his declaration, and
granted leave to amend the declaration, upon furnish-
ing an affidavit of merits.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 16.
PETITT V. MITCHELL.

The arguments in this case, which occupied the
whole of Monday, and involves a question of some
importance to auctioneers, were resumed this morning
by Mr. Sergeant Channell, in support of the rule for
a new trial. The action was brought by the plaintiff,
an auctioneer, to recover 311., the amount at which the
defendant had bid for, and bought, a quantity of cloth
at a sale in the plaintiff's rooms. The question at issue
was, whether, according to an alleged rule in auction-
rooms, the purchaser could be compelled to pay
for goods, before he should be allowed to
measure them. Evidence was adduced on
the trial to show that such a rule prevailed, and that
be deficient
defiacge
was, when the measure was discovered to
er payment, to return a proportionate
usienlves af
sum to the purchaser. On the other hand it was
shown, on the part of the defendant, that the rule was
not strictly enforced even in the sale-room of the
plaintiff. The Jury, however, found for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant Bompas, with whom was Mr. Ser-
geant Channell, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial.
On Monday Mr. Sergeant Talfourd showed cause
against the rule, and this day the Court, after hearing
Mr. Sergeant Channel! in reply, discharged the rule,
expressing, at the same time, an opinion that the rule
set up by the plaintiff was perfectly reasonable, al-
though an auctioneer might, through courtesy, depart
from it occasionally for the convenience of a particu-
lar customer.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 16.
IN RE ABRAHAM HARVEY TRIMMER.

Mrt QIIESSWELL appeared to move for the re-admis-
sion of the name of Mr. John Thomas Holt into the
insolvent's schedule, under the following rather sin-
gular circumstances :—lt appeared that insolvent had
taken the benefit of the Act in the year 1821, and he,
along with a great number of the creditors, had since
died. The name of Mr. Holt had been struck out of
the schedule ; and some time back a solicitor named
Young, had by Chancery proceedings realised from a
property the insolvent was entitled to, and which had
lain in abeyance for a long time, a sum sufficient to
pay twenty shillings in the pound. Mr. Holt's claim
was upon a joint promissory note, to which the in-
solvent was a party, and the former now put in affi-
davits by his Counsel,) to show that he had received
no satisfaction for the money advanced upon this
document. _ _

Several other applications upon grounds like the
present were about being made in this matter, when
Mr. Commissioner Halms said he had the oath of
the insolvent, taken 31 years ago, which was at vari-.
mice with that of Mr. Holt, and showed that he was
merely a liability creditor, and had never paid 6d. upon
the bill. lie should, therefore, refuse the application.