The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. IL
WOOD V. SMITH.
Mr. GURNEY moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this case
should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered.
The action was on the warranty of a herse, and was
tried at the late sittings in Middlesex before Lord
Tenterden.—Ride refused.
DOBSON AND OTHERS V. RATUBONE AND OTHERS.
Mr. littouGuater stated that this action, which
was tried at the last assizes at. Lancaster, before Mr.
Justice Littledale, was brought by the assignees of
Jeremiah Thomson, a bankrupt, to recover from the
defendants, Messrs. Rathbone, Brothers, and Co.,
a very large sum in their hands. A verdict was
found for the plaintiffs, with leave by the Learned
Judge to move to set it aside and enter a nonsnit,
on a point raised for the defendants as to the in-
validity of the act of bankruptcy. The main ques-
tion was whether a deed of assignment, executed
abroad by Jeremiah Thomson, constituted an act of
bankruptcy within the meaning of the 3d section of
the 6th of George IV., cap. 16. Another question
arose under the Stamp Act, which was, whether an
instrument of this de,cription, executed abroad, but
intended to operate in this country, was exempted
from the exigency of the Stamp Act.
The COURT decided against the Learned Coun-
sel, on the latter point, and suggested that the other
question, which they thought was one of great im-
portance, should be brought on for discussion on a
special case. This was acceded to.
ROGERS V. WOOD AND OTHERS.
Mr. TAUNTON moved for a rule to shew cause
why the verdict for the defendant should not be set
aside and a new trial had. The declaration in this
case was in prohibition, and it alleged that the Court
of Great Session of the County Palatine of Chester
was proceeding to try a quo warrant° informatio❑
against Mr. Rogers, the plaintiff, touching an office
in the city of Chester. There was a traverse, to
the effect that the usurpation of the office in ques-
tion was committed out of the jurisdiction of the
Court of Great Session of the said county of Ches-
ter. The substantial question to be tried was whe-
ther the city of Chester, from time immemorial, had
been, and still was, parcel of the County Palatine of
Chester, and within the jurisdiction of the Court of
Great Session of the said County Palatine. The
verdict for the defendant was in favour of the juris-
diction. The Learned Counsel now moved to set
aside the verdict, on the ground that the Learned
Serjeant (Mr. Serieant 'Faddy) before whom the
eal4,C was tried, had received evidence which ought
to have been rejected, and rejected evidence which
ought to have been received.—Rule nisi granted.
LLOYD V. ALDRED.
Mr. PLATT stated that this case, which was tried
at the Middlesex sittings last week, had excited some
attention in consequence of the curious case which
had been made out for the plaintiff. It was tried as
an undefended cause, and a verdict was given for
38 guineas. The action was in trover to recover
the value of a necklace and pair of ear-rings. The
facts proved at the trial were, that the defendant,
Miss Aldred, had sent to the plaintiff, a jeweller,
stating that she wished to purchase a necklace and
pair of ear-rings, and requesting him :o bring those
articles to her. The plaintiff accordingly Nl'aited on
her with them, and was shown into her bed-room,
where she was in bed. She looked at the articles,
which she said she liked very much, and would
keep them to show to a friend whom she was ex-
pecting in town. The plaintiff objected to leave the
articles without the money, having previously told
her that the price was 38. guineas ; but she refused
to return them, and immediately put them under her
clothes in bed. A written demand was afterwards
made, but the articles not being returned, the present
action was brought. The Learned Counsel now
moved on the affidavit of the defendant, which stated
that in March last she sold the plaintiff a dressing,
case for 201. which he had not paid for, and that
when he brought the necklace and car-rings, she
proposed to deduct the 20/. from the price of those
articles, and pay him the difference, but he oljected,
and afterwards brought the present action, to defend
which she employed an attorney. She had relied
upon having intimation from the attorney of the time
of trial, when her witnesses would have been forth-
coming, but she had heard nothing more of the cause
until she saw by an account in the newspapers that
it had been tried. These facts were stated to ac,
count for the cause having been taken as undefended;
and the Learned Counsel trusted that under these
circumstances the Court would grant a rule for a new
trial on payment of costs. Rule nisi granted.
EX•PARTE MAULE.
Mr. B. ANDREWS moved, on the part of Mr.
George Frederick Mande, the town clerk of Hunt-
ingdon, for a rule to show cause why a criminal in,
formation should not be filed against Weston Hat.
field, the publisher of the Bedford and Huntingdon
Gazette, for two libels published in that Paper on
the 25th of July last, reflecting on Mr. Maule's per-
sonal character, and also on his conduct as town
clerk of Huntingdon.—Rule nisi grated.
CASSIM V. THOMAS BERKELEY BOND, GENT. ONE, &C.
This cause came on for trial in June las'. My
Lord TENTERDEN recommended a reference. It
was referred to J. N. Talfourd, Esq., who bath
awarded a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff--
Damages 1651., besides the costs of reference, and
the costs of action, together making a further sum of
about 2501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.
COMPETENCY TO BECOME BAIL.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, upon taking his seat
this morning, informed the bar that in consequence,
of some doubt having existed as to whether or not
leaseholders should be allowed to justify as bail, the
Judges had conferred together on the subject, and
agreed that none but housekeepers or freeholders
were competent to become bail.
WILKINS V. MOLLOY, GENT.
This was an action brought by. the plaintiff to re-
cover an alleged balance of salary due to him as
clerk to the defendant. The plaintiff having been
nonsuited on the trial, he was yesterday about to
move the Court in person to set aside the nonsuit,
and stated, that although lie had had• the assistance
of Mr. Serjeant Taddy when his cause was tried; lie
was now deprived of it in consequence of the want
of funds.
The COURT desired the plaintiff to let the case
stand over till this morning, when they were sure
Mr. Serjeant Taddy, who was nut then in .Court,
would not object to lending his professional aid out
of any such consideration ai that referred to by the
plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY to-day made the motion, first
observing that he was bound, not only in justice to
himself, hut in. justice to the bar generally, to ex-
press his conviction that there was no gentleman in
the profession who, when a client ceased, from want
of funds, to be able to claim his assistance in the
usual way, would not still not only continue his
exertions in his cause, but even, if possible, on that
account, continue them increased zeal. The
ground on which he now moved was, that the
plaintiff's own evidence was a surprise upon him, in-
asmuch as the witness, whom he had been obliged
to call to prove his ease, and who was a clerk of
the defendant's, had made a statement, a month
before the trial, to another person, directly at vari-
fiance with his testimony in Cotttt. —Motion refused.