The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-21 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 19.

Up to the time of cur going to press the Court had dis-
posed of three cases, all of which were of the most uninterest-
ing description.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 18.

JOHNSTON AND CO. V. CHANDLER.

This was an action to recover back 24,0001., alleged to; have
been advanced to the defendant by the plaintiffs, who are extensive
corn-dealers in Bush lane, upon supposed assignments of corn,
made by the defendant.

The case opened on behalf of the plaintiffs, was that they had en-
trusted the management of their business, in a great degree, to a
person named Burton, a clerk in their employment, who had de-
ceived them, and it turned out eventually that they had been de-
frauded out of 80,0001. It was alleged that the defendant received
advances to that amount, for which the plaintiff: received no value,
but it was not asserted that the defendant had any knowledge of
the frauds practised by Burton.

After the case had proceeded for some time, a consultation took
place between the parties, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff
for 4001.

SATURDAY.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord ABINGER
and a Common Jury.)
BOWIE V. JURY.
Mr. Platt, Q. C., with Mr. C. Jones, were Counsel for
Counsel for the defendant.
the plaintiff, and Mr. Erb., Q. C., with Mr. Barstow, were

This was an action of trespass for the alleged illegal distress, by
the defendants, of several weights which were taken
from the shoo of the plaintiff, who is a grocer and tea dealer
in Shoe-lane. It appeared that the defendant was one of the
inquest-jury of St. Bride's, whose duty it was to superintend
the weights, scales, and measures of that parish. That the per-
sons composing that jury had agreed amongst themselves to ap-
portion the duties of the parish, and with that view divided
themselves into three sepearate bodies, consisting of four each,
who were, by mutual arrangement, to inspect the weights
and measures in the districts allotted to them respectively.
and with a view also to avoid the exposure of a number of
persons as a jury visiting the premises of any trader, and
thereby collecting a crowd, or attracting public notice, and to
prevent insufficient weights being secreted. It appeared that
six weights were taken from the plaintiff fur being insufficient
by the defendant, and three other jurors who had accompanied
him, and on being taken to the vestry-room they were weighed
in the presence of the plaintiff, when it was ascertained
that one of them was correct, and the remaining five
were detained. The respective weights and differences
of these detained were as f illows : One ounce
weight deficient four grains; 2 oz. weight deficient a similar
number of grains. Another weight of 2 oz., deficient 6 grains.
A quarter of a lb. weight deficient two grains ; and the fifth
weight, being also a quarter of a lb., deficient seven grains.
Lord Auiscea, in summing up, commented strongly upon
the conduct of plaintiff's attorney, who had brought separate ac-
tions against the four jurors who had seized the plaintiff's weights,
and told the Jury that although the Inquest. Jury would have
been fully justified in seiz;ng any weights, however trivial the
deficiency might have been, yet in the present case there should
be a verdict given for the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defendant
and the three jurors who accompanied him, could not legally
exercise privileges vested in the whole jury. The Inquest
Jury should have all acted together, and the entire twelve
should have been present when the seizure had been made;
otherwise their acts, as a jury, were not warranted by law.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, with One Farthing
damages.

MOORE V CLA AKE.

This Inas an action torecoie;;;;pensation in damages for
an alleged
Kprow egedpinrssy-
and another gentleman appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. M. D. Hill for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a publisher, carrying on
business in St. Martin's-lane, and that in the year 1839 he had
published a portrait of the celebrated mare Beeswing, of which
the price was 15s. each coloured, and 7s. 6d. plain. The
mlf had published of Beeswing,
de-
fendant is the printer and publisher of a cheap weekly publica •
tion, called Torn Spring's Life in London, and in that work
he had given what he had described as a portrait of a distin-
uished and successful racer, as a winner of the Derby, called
taken oro
from
a ti o
thatp which he
he
Coronation, a
and as one strong proof of that fact, the representation of
Coronation, although a horse, bore the indications of the wood-
oii which,hisethe plaintiff complained, was
cut of a mare, and that the original was Beeswing.
In support of this statement several engravers and painters
were tailed as witnesses, all .ef o whom said that in their
h
opinion the drawing for
t wood-cut of Coronation
had been copied from the
plaintiff's portrait of Beeswing.
They, however, added, that the
of only variances between
the two portraits were a reversingthe position of the head
of the animal, and in the back ground for whilst in the origi-
nal the bath-ground was a view of :
the country, that in the
copy presented the representati t-
onoa grand stand and figures.
Mr. HILL, on the part of the defendant, contended first that
there had been no proof of damag_ ving been sustained; and
secondly, he would put it to thev_J_uer.ayl,to consider whether any
sporting gentleman, or any.indi id wishg to possess the char
him-
self of a portrait of Beeswing,charge for which, let them
remember, was 15s. and 7s. 5a., would buy a work of such
manifold inferior merit as a cheap weekly Publication.
Lord ABINGRR left it to the Jury to say whether, in their
opinion, there was not such a difference between the two por-
traits as to enable them to say that the one was not a piracy of
the other, and then, if there were not such a variance, whether
they considered that an damaget. had been sustained by the
plaintiff, and if so, to what amount.
The JURY returned a vetdiet for the defendant.
Amongst the witnesses examine :t on the part of the plaintiff
were Messrs. Hunt, Meyer, a a
oper, all artists of great
celebrity in this particular branch of their profession.

thsuembankropte -,
esittteshro;ito the defendants, the great
1/VON PLE
COURT OF CO- -L
of
A 3485:. Fpaeibd.
to them
GIBBON v. TA wso x.
This was an action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt
against
pa
aitn
mstarcreditors,fraudulent
b et
eon raenc preference,recover
) The bank-
warehousemen in St. Paul's lurch-yard, but afterwards
want into business on his own account. Being un-
successful and insolvent, he communicated to the de-
fendants the state of his affairs, and wished them to take back
so much of th"ir goods as remained in hand. This, they were
informed by their solicitor, they could not legally do, and there-
fore they obtained instead a power of attorney for their debt.
To compel them to refund that amount for the bcneAt of the