The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-20 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

The Court was occupied for a considerable portion of the
day in hearing an application in reference to the validity of a
lease, and the arguments of counsel as to which of two leases
was the valid one, or whether the last-made lease was to be
held to be the governing lease.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATITSON.)
The ArronNztv-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why Mr. Billing, an attorney of this Court, should not an-
swer an affidavit.

In April last Mr. Billing brought two actions against a Mr.
Mackenzie, who not receiving the usual notice of declaration
searched the office and found a notice of declaration filed
upon an affidavit of service by one John Smith, stated to reside
in the Bethnal-green-road. Mr. Mackenzie at once instituted
inquiries, and found that no person named John Smith re-
sided at the address mentioned in the affidavit, and no person
of that name had resided there for many months previous.
An application was made by Mr. Mackenzie to stay all fur-
ther proceedings, but in consequence of some delay on his
part it was dismissed with costs. Another action against the
same party had since been entered by Mr. Billing, who again
filed an affidavit of service by the same John Smith. An
application was made to Mr. Justice Wightman, who ordered
all proceedings to be stayed on the ground of irregularity, and
Mr. Billing had to pay the costs. On the first application
to stay the proceedings Mr. Billing produced a sheriff's
officer, who swore that he saw John Smith serve the notice
of declaration, but Mr. Justice Wightman did not seem to
put implicit reliance on that statement.
Mr. Justice PAITESON said that the affidavit of service
might have been made by a person bearing the name of John
Smith, although he might not live at the place described.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that that doubt constituted
their only difficulty, as in the event of the affidavit not being
made by John Smith it would be an indictable offence.—Rule
gr.anted.

THE QUEEN V. ••••-•••-•,--.

My. WORDSWORTH moved for a rule to show cause
why a certain attorney should not be struck off the
rolls, or why he should not answer a certain affidavit.
The Learned Gentleman stated, that the proceedings in
this case arose from an action on two bills of exchange for
1501. each, in the case of Wood v. the Earl of Portarlington,
which was tried in the county of Sussex, before Mr. Justice
Coleridge. A verdict was given in favour of the plaintiff, for
8701. The present case arising from it was one of a flagrant
nature, such as seldom came before the Court, being an
offer of a bribe of 10/. from an attorney to a witness to
swear to that which he knew to be untrue. The facts on
which this application were founded were briefly these :—ln
the action he had before•mentioned the two first counts in
the defendant's declaration pleadedthat he did not accept the
bills, and the other set forth that -the money was given to
play at unlawful games, and that the bills were given to
secure the payment of money lost by defendant to plaintiff at
unlawful games and by gambling. The cause was fixed for'
trial on the 29th of July, but did not come on until the fol.
lowing Wednesday, and at the conclusion of each day Mr.
Richards, the attorney for the plaintiff, and a witness named
Wallace, went to Brighton, and put up at an hotel called the

White House. Mr. --, the attorney for the defendant,
asked permission to join them there, which was allowed.
One morning they all breakfasted together, and Mr. Richards
went up stairs, leaving Mr. --- and Wallace in the coffee-
room. What took place there would be best learned from
the affidavit subsequently made by Mr. Wallace. The
Learned Counsel then read the affidavit, from which it ap-
peared that, on Mr. Richards leaving the coffee-room, Mr.
- banded a paper under the table to Wallace, which paper
purported to be a proof of his evidence to be given on the
trial, and told him at the same time to read it when he should
be unobserved. Mr. Richards came into the room at that
time, and they all started in a carriage for Lewes, where
the cause was tried. On their arrival at the Court-house, Mr
Richards got out, and Mr. - then said to Mr. Wallace
that be had better read the paper, and he would engage Mr.
Richard's attention while he did so. Wallace then read the
paper, which stated that he would prove that when the bills
became due Mr. Wood had called upon Messrs. Pine and
Richards, the defendant's solicitors, to whom he (Wallace)
was clerk, and had threatened to institute proceedings
against the defendant, and that he, as clerk to Pine and
Riehards„informed him that the defendant had instructed
them that the hills were for a gambling debt, and that if he
was pressed for payment he would plead that fact on the
trial. He was further to state, that the plaintiff at once ad-
mitted that fact, and did not press for payment for some time
afterwards. At the bottom of this paper was written in
pencil 5, Q. Si.," thereby intimating that such a sum
would be given for swearing to the document. Mr.
Wallace expressed his astonishment that Mr. - should
wish him to swear to that which he knew to be untrue, and
Mr. - increased his offer to 101., stating that money was
no object if that statement could be sworn to. On Wallace's
refusing. he begged that he would not tell any person of what
had occurred.

Mr. Justice PArrEsoN—Such an offence would amount to
a misdemeanour. _

Mr:WOEESWORTIT said that it would do so no doubt, but
it did not follow that, because it was an indictable offence,
that application should not be made to the Court of Queen's
Bench. That impression once existed, but it had been
clearly decided by a Learned Judge that in such a case an
application to the Court of Queen's Bench could be made.
The remainder of the affidavit was then read, and it ap-
peared that the attorney for Mr. Wood (Mr. Richards) had
been instructed to make the present application. and had in-
formed Mr. of his instruction, and Mr. had
requested that it shnuld be referred to some gentleman at the
bar, but that was declined by Mr. Wood.
The Learned JUDGE then grant a rule to show cause why
the affidavit should not bo answered.

-----"••••--"--".-----"---epail
• -
ERRATITM.-111 our report of the proceedings I. ,-; war'
Court yesterday, read "; Sv moods v. The 3layor 6 .'14.,,
von, instead or Symonds v. The Mayor of Caerinartlo'
EX-PARTE MEADOWS. 11Y Tb°3l"
Mr. HAYES moved for a rule to shown ause w
uce eftbe
Meadows, now a prisoner in Warwick, to hit'
result of, a coroner's inquisition, should not he allows. i fie
From certain affidavits it appeared that 110 filter
near Warwick a fight occurred., mid the pew stOnei'
fered. The persons lighting resisted and tisb
.e_,,,. ittl
one of which struck a policeman, and caused h a a`.looed
inquest was held, and in consequence of the verdict t.eg joi.
iconscqee,a
se "3' 'ds ei
The Ca , ..00
the applicant was taken into custody.
cially examined while the occurrence WAS fresh in tri,evo,, bey
the parties, and the charge was diSmissed. He
ever, still in custody on the coroner's inquisition. ,
_,. the sr
Several affidavits were read, which set forth tp a:then ill
plicant, so far from assaulting the police, bad helped
ve s
suppressing the disturbance.. bs
Mr. Justice PArrEsox said it would be better taro. of
certiorari to remove the inquisition, and afterw
.IL
cause why the applicant should not be admitted to tAI
NICHOLLS V. LACKURN. ~,I. eicer
Sir Joust 'BAYLEY m oved for a rule fora sberlll., t the
to show cause why be should not return to the nqi:ligeoct s
surplus of a sum of money, the proceeds of a sale e, he
lotc
and why he should not return certain sums will A
t 3 one,
extorted as fees.
The Learned Counsel said that the Pres(' „ared rte,
of the most cruel cases he ever knew. It aPi'''the Samoa
the applicant was indebted to Mr. Blackburn in_
lee, it
89/. 17s. 10d. and as he was unable to pay it at f'peceoll'er,
agre• d that lie should pay 21. 10s. on the Ist 0, Apelli
and 51. on the Ist of every succeeding rac'et„ll,",t els'', p
vva s tendered to him, which, being an ign°l*- rota ,:an
signed without examining, but there was eireV to ,
believe that it was a Judge's order for the creditor e
judgment and issue execution, in the event any
of e-j. 1'1;
larity in the payment of the instalment,. lie paideat in't, it
oa the Ist of December, and he did not pay the '1 tole,'
ile buns
meat until the sth of the f •llowing month.
over to Mr. Nayler, the creditor's attorney, Wheitooltlia
receipt. On the 6th a sheriff's officer came t° att the cro;ilit
session of applicant's goods and handed them
~,,h t„e fur
on the some day. The sum for n'''ili, 1,0• vs
was issued was 98/. 4s. 7d., being just 1,. sd, do
costs. The sale of the goods realised 251. il,„` 73/• dins
debt and costs were paid, as was ".1-40fioe es•
fur rent, leaving a balance of SOL 6s. 10d. InsVat.or Woo,
it to the owner, the officer charged 50/. 25.1 the PO be
penses of the levy on the goods, and ban 4a. foto,
251. 4s. 7d. to Nayler, who charged 21/. 7'431, 11.,i'‘.1,44,ris
trouble, and handed the applicant 3/. 17,_s• Lit ',1„" tbii
the sum of 5/. paid on the sth. Tne ~,,ent'citi'l
chap. 55, empowered the Court to enforce rell.the &leiter),
case, and enacted, that in these cases the COsts° the, few
officer should be taxed. In this case the se° °ale co
and s '
entitled to charge for expenses was only 131., ariffe ''
shillings. He sought to recoyer;from 'the sli,,,e-Pll°.
because he had no right to deliver themoneY
Rule granted.
----------
V.)
EXCHEQUER.-(THIS P
(Sittings in Banco.) ifCtii°
WILLIAMS V. NEWTON..
~,. nigiDt- ,ilOt.
This was an action of debt brought by te, 'for th,;,bic,l`
is a Trinity-house piiot, to recover 35/. 14s. o,",:pdso4.„ilag'
age of a certain vessel, the property of the and of rntlf 0
the defendant controverted, and on the groun,osee: 'dr,
ultimately succeeded in obtaining a verdict. ' ,eit t-eo,lo'
rule nisi was obtained by Mr. Jervis, calling llie 0.011;
fendant to show cause why the verdict forttrtbalsteill
should not be set aside, and the same entered °fling tlefool'•
Mr. Sergeant SHER now showed cause ag',cot it osg
and from the statement of the Learned Seressei t;t,0013.,
appear that the defendant was the owner of 4 ' t OCCOIO
between London and Madeira, and on i reee,,ltbOatsC."o
piloted this vessel up and down' Thames I" `pith, lc'
the Thepls vial
in the •
assistance of a Trinity-house pilot. f tbe 014
was the pilot belonging to the corporation ,° do,.i, co',
house, who tendered his services to the deleent of 1,,,;
fused them, considered this act an infringeree7isn t°•pioi
rights or privileges, and brought the present ac jai' ,r
but tbe t'rrid
his pilotage, which amounted to 35/. 155., c.eso fi
trial found for the defendant. The Learned Sr''grattroerj
that they had done so correctly, for Learnt
the ov '''
~,.d,s, kce ~
charters from the Crown, made at various Pe- / ' ilc.
wards confirmed, ratified, and sanctioned Fort
ty 1
Parliament, ' which entitled the Cintluletcoa,V,
to navigate vessels within the jurie- To) r''
welio 0,4,0
Cinque Ports up and down and upon:the
Medway, the residents of the Isle of Thanet•tbolitge:t•°:
lege of piloting their own ships and vessels, "%earl l'loi.'',
the expense of a Trinity-house pilot. It eten'ssel °lt 4't
the the
aisst9i,
Learned Sergeant contended, whence
with what port she traded for, provided ti.e the doe
r was the owner, or part owner, was a reside situp pil,/
Thanet, he had the right of piloting his v'eatoe t° t 4
the Thames and Med - • h • rev'.
way without having jefeiael
sistance of a Trinity-hous '1 epi ot. ,05 eri
Mr. JERVIS, on the other band, d ths- ct'li in
argue be ls,ol
had not the extensive right he claimed, for 115. 01, if ft
eo fi
the terms of the Act of Parliament, a resident,': ssil tit.
Thanet could only pilot his own vessel when2,-„in.,,,5'00l
one of the Cinque for London, and whack
"eV-
, be ot
not the power of piloting his vessel when 0 01
London for Madeira, or any foreign port. • fr`4
blot ,
The LORI) CHIEF BARON said it appeared to Ott/4'
principal queStion for the Ccurt to deridte allyh's
what places a resident in the, Isle of Thane,bo nan '';',l
gate his own vessels without calling in, reel lreiy
of a pilot of the Trinity-house, and he gatil;,lstatept, rd
terms of the Act of Parliament, that the liegsfba°`,o'',,,
these places to be Dover, Deal, and the Isle 0" le 10 ty
was clearly, therefore, of opinion, that the r,431-or tile ~
must be made absolute, and a verdict cage" ii,4''
~ie I
tiff for the amount claimed-351. 14s. 6d. ~ „f rP,4,.,
Mr. Baron PARER remarked that the isob „„," to „rfredw:i
said " The residents of the Isle of Thanet we'led •"„ OP;
their vessels up and down the rivers Tharnes -slace-e
from the places aforesaid, those " OD s°
&c." Now, vijef,
~, -tang,
Dover, Deal, and the Isle of Thanet, it iraa,e,„ssr po'.o
sentence was grammatically incorrect, for it '00,6
that a vessel could not be navigated /116"figil,i,
Deal, or the Isle of Thanet, down the rive- tle • I'L'a
211e6'way. It was clear • that ban 'it,
to him therefore, , vs,- fo„to
ture intended that the residents'of the Isle o',ea°',.4.'
have the privilege of navigating their vesselarn to 011010
Cinque Ports to London, and back from Loose of tied /„.1
Cinque Ports, without going to the Wee°, t"vet
house pilot. Now, as the vessel in this es,ea to
London to Madeira, he was clearly of opinion ta- 00
We
ought to be entered for the 1 • -•
p =tiff. , tbis "
The • • remainder of the Court containing in - 41)
.N05e..L....L.4e accordingly. Aso
- P
COMMON PLEA5.......(111P-ire 4 4.
(Sittings in Banco.) 1010,101.0
REGISTRATION APPEALS.-HITCHINg t/' fate' bi•"!
The appellant in this case objected the de 10;
to roads aAr
apondant, on the ground that the claim -3 4-$
se bl 5 t tb4„ti
latter did not contain a sufficient description ,„ tbt .0,,,e
tion. The Revising Barrister was of °pit:l'c' tiP set'
oterti,b, desert'
scription was sufficient, but yet, made an t , IF
render • it more clear. It was now represented ter
JOO •
represen had Di
tion was
not sufficient, and that the Barrister - •e•
Olt PI
to in.Yke any alteration eon VI,
It appeared that the respondent's qualificatioder tiod
t,,wo houses. In one column of his claint ,ae,' t' filt
Nature of qualification," was the word"he-n•betociet
another, the locality of the two houses was depot a..A5 .4.4 '
ohjection was, that the word "house" Bras ov.7;ir,,,
description of two houses, and that tilettiCe. - ‘j't
to be "houses. " The case of "BS le re,ll,serei
which came before the lee' ' ' '.4
Court ,e t 1 rsi.,.,i,
cited in support of the above view. In this ea'• n c°gain
racatio ,
dent in his claim bad stated that his rina:l hat I°3d a 4
of a house • in East-street, when it appeared t"-treetd-0 ,
cation wasmade up of two houses, one in East;',,3 too eir,
in West.street. It was held that the dese.,',...rstie°' ea'ii
sufficient, as it only stated a part of his qua]
at tbe,,`l?-,,,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion tin'a Vot 1
tion was sufficient. The word " house " °et's' il, 3 je°
en scOe y
"Nature of qualification," must be taken' t°.,-aesso'l s;
house," but " house qualification,"which -5 l'. re)'
there 0 ,0
description, especially as in another column • coo P f
n who eh 1011,
scription of the two houses,
and was not so old and infirm as to be led ah°ll,' la pi, i
as the appellant must be h '-‘l5 c . 5
supposed to e, roe 0.4
make any • mistake in reading it. Oa
, v to ,t, of , tie,
" Bartlett v. Gibbs" did not 1
that case the claim • 3P inent'°- I.lo' ir
contained no ~t to 010',,,t
house but that in East-street, whereas it ought s tot', t'a
scribed that in West-street also; and in this 05- r ourl:4l,i
were mentioned. The obection that the berristtofile lie
to allow the descriptionof the qualification `a
ster 0 (
ehe ks
as the restriction
was, "that the Revising Bat for 1;r1 '
alter any description . of a qualification, exce,P dot, t:,,
pose of rendering the same more clear' . d u''s 4'
an
el"
was the object in this case.
The other Judges agreeing Lord Ch.l t°
with the
the decision of the Barrister ed• Pv- I'd'
was affirm
,attr tO
NEWTON V. THE OVERSEERS OF MOBBERLY.-"- $
OVERSEERS OF CROSELEr- .1„r 4 10 I,
These two cases, which depend siren- •
upon Hots red, is
were postponed for the convenience of the app bad 5C'„ Id -I
former case. it was said that the responds ~".-aer c-„tlst,';
waiye certain notices, but no proof of this 'o'4"-t oPrestu't
brought forward, and as the respondents did ,it ia 01,
was necessary that the cause should be petlfebe se
that the appellants should cause these notices b° - .flAo'
rC P
SHERIFFS' COURT._(THP-',
(Before Mr. LTndersheriffßuncoar,l'i 000'
V sto'
DIVERS V. BARRETT. agar je 0,0,1,
The plaintiff in this action is a watchrit ta cs ry,,,
street, Goodman's-fields, and the defendant '5
inebtla 0,(1).
painter in the employ of the London and Dirlit'-,:er t,rello'
way Company. The action brought to reo .a ev
wasan .1 0
of 9/. 135., the balance of an account for watches ~s4a
• tIP •it
supplied to defendant. 4., alaletbel,o
Mr. HAWKINS stated the case. In May, 1•81•-,.1,•ch,/•, tt,
a silver lever watch to the defendant for 91, of ,„,•1 P,,lF„'
fendant paid a portion, leaving a balance of 41. 1'",,,; of io'i, lied
had another watch and small articles,tothe anlou;',„-siii '4o'
making a balance of 12/., of which defendant 111": 'Oster ~li
The plaintiff's witnesses n I."` 1'
were persons 1 $1....
sae •jr
employ. Aefea-g
James Brain, carriage-painter-Had seen -,,-;tose ' d
the lever watch. Had been watchmaker m- IV'
a
se Est
watch was not worth more than
Si. dot- 0001,,
- Mann, foreman painter-Had heard deiee „ „ot dOr
tiff had claimed of him. but he (defenclentl di(' - a°tiJl
f igs co
he owed plaintiff anything; but to make al th-tige el ti
able, be would pay 2s. 6d. a-or 5/. in till.- to
s*4
week,
_,
Plaintiff sold watches to
the
men on the line- a lever d
A. watchmaker was called, who said a Pe. for 51Lb,,8
was worth 10/. ; it was only the worst that wer- wswed
Mr. nee only wen '
THOMAS said the evide t to ove
stdtoitt
that had been valued at 5/ • 2/ 10 had been
. , • s.A 01,j
be paid.-Verdict for the plaintiff for 2/. 105.
Otto ve
THOMAS V. WALKER. ~,,. ewer cti 1
The plaintiff is a painter in Judd-street, Pe Tbe to, ,r•
the defendant a gentleman in the New-road•iv. srolle4ls
was brought to recover the sum of 71. O. „,1-d Pl'-'
labour. The defendant admitted a debt of 31., '-- ' easy
plo
tender to that amount. „,_be, 8 iso3
The principal witness was a person namedll„f t, si°4
in Middlesex-street, Somers-town, who did per' of
to'
1.1 fa lid
He considered the charge moderate. s 0 A
that defendant called upon him two or three tilltaef 0101110
he had tendered 3/., and if witness would get 00,..day orY
when the trial came en he would give l°s. 'ter' '4'
him, os a. ese- j
it lasted, or •
a sovereign to go to Hampstean• no pin, ntat
said he would give the if he W 0.4, gt°',al,
By Mr. Thomas.-Plaintiff treated him T‘'',,, defe'„ eit•
they walked about together. Witness said to tmt-o, iteer,dt,
" Give me the money down first." Did not Ineertioart,_,,°, tt)"
of the way, but to produce the money i° -lila td''' i A
tr
He went about to get out of defendant all he 6°
tit° so
case. a 65- et°
Two witnesses were called for the defendant,eniied to 0
the work at from 50s. to 3/and female was CS.
~ a
the tender. es°
audie° pi
The jury, to the evident surprise of the
grin
verdict for the full amount.
The list was very heavy, but the case wereosti,°on bills of exchange, except two or three P
consent.

in% d
THE nouSELESS POOR.—PrepariatiOno Twig: OP
for opening the asylums in Ogle-street, IP sylon 0 til
East Smithfield, which will take place as so°
commences.