The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-27 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 26.
His .Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND sat in his
Court .iu Lincoln's Inn to-day, at two o'clock, for the pur-
pose, as stated yesterday, of hearing the case of
DAVIS V. COMBERHERE.
The qne stion in the case is of no public importance.
His HONOUR made the order as prayed.

COUt:?T OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26.
(Sittings after Term, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a
Common Jury.)
OVERSTON V. WILSON.

This was an action of trover brought to recover a quantity
of furniture, to which the defendant had pleaded that he was
not guilty.
Mr. Granger appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. V. Lee fur
the defendant.
The plaintiff was an upholsterer carrying on business in
Oxford-street, and the defendant a gentleman of property
residing in the country. Some few months ago the de-
fendant let one of his houses, or a part of it, to a person named
Mrs. Martin, but she subsequently failed to pay the rant,
.and her goods were seized under a distress. The
-pt.sintiff then made his appearance, and put in a
-claim for part of the goods seized, alleging that he
had let them to a Miss Standish Gill, the niece of Mrs.
Martin, but the defendant, having some doubt of this, refused
to restore them, and hence the present action.
Evidence having been adduced in support of the plaintiff's
case, in the course of which it was elicited that the goods in
question were not sold, and that the plaintiff had given notice
to Richardson, the auctioneer, and who apt#d qe the went of
the defendant in the distress, not to deliver op the hhated
goods to any one without his authority.
Mr. LEE addressed the jury for the defendant, remarking
that the case involved a quastion of law and a question of
fact. The former, of course, his Lordship world We to de-
cide, but the latter rested entirely with the
j,ery, Well, then, the question of fact for
th era to decide was, whether these goods were the property
of the plaintiff or not. He should call a witness to prove that
the plaintiff had declared that they wore not his property,
and he was cure the jury would decide on this
-point in hie favour. The next point was a questiou
4>f law. It had been proved by the
own witness that he had given Richardson
notice not to part with the goods, and it would be for his
lordship to decide whether
ttoheresptolambittlfrhe
couldgoods m
Ta
e-
' tain this action, having by his own act debarred the
defendant from having power
Learned Counsel concluded by calling Mrs. Storey, and in
reply to a question as to where she resided, she asked,
Who's to pay me ?
Mr. V. LEE-01) you'll be paid your expenses ma'am.
Witness—l don't know that.

The LORD CIIIEF BARox—What are you, witness ?
Witness—l am a milliner and dressmaker, and support my
family with my labour.
The LORD CIIIEF BARON—Toa ought certainly to be re-
munerated for your loss of time.
Mr. V. LEE—Will you take the word of the defendant's
attorney to see you paid ? Witness—Who is the defendant's
attorney ?—(LaugL ter.)
Mr. V. LEE—He is a respectable practitioner.
Witness—l don't know that; but, at all events, I won't
take his word.

The LORD- CHIEF BARON—WiII you take the officer of the
Court's word to see you paid? Witness—Certainly, my
Lord.

The LORD CHIEF BARON suggested then that the defend-
ant's attorney had better deposit 2/., and this having been
done, the witness allowed herself to be examined. She proved
that the 'plaintiff had declared to her that the goods in
question were the property of Mrs. Martin.
Mr. GRANGER having replied,
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up with great minute-
ness, observing that the case involved no question of law. It
was simply a question of fact, and all the jury had to decide
was, whether the goods were the property of the plaintiff,
and had the defendant been guilty of a conversion of
them.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
that the goods were the plaintiff's, but they• did not think
the defendant had any intention of converting them to his
own use.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—That, in fact, is a verdict for
the defendant.

Foreman of the jury—No, my Lord, we do not find a ver-
dict for the defendant or the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF BAROW—What do you find, then ? Do
you find that the plaintiff let the goods to Mr. Martin ?
Foreman—No ; we find that the goods were his, but that
he did not let them.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—I think, Gentlemen, you had
better retire, and reconsider your verdict.
Foreman—My Lord, we have considered it, and we find
that the goods were the plaintiff's, but the defendant, we
think, did not intend to use them. We do not wish to say
who shall have the verdict—the plaintiff or the defen?,ant.
The LORD CHIEF BARON suggested that the parties had
better consent to withdraw a juror.
This suggestion was ultimately adopted, and the jury
discharged.