The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-14 00:00:00

RICHES V. TWENTYMAN.

The plaintiff in this case is a builder, and the de-
fendant a gentleman residing in Avenue-road, Re-
gent's-park. The action was brought to recover
401. Bs. 6d., alleged to be due from defendant, for
preparing estimates for the building of a house.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Humfrey conducted the case
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Thomas
for the defendant.

It was admitted that Riches had prepared the
estimate ; hut, on the part of the defendant, it was
contended that Riches was given distinctly to under-
stand that the estimate was to be prepared gratui-
tously, as the building was to be competed for, so as
to give defendant the opportunity of accepting which
contract he might think proper. This was denied by
plaintiff, who contended that he had been expressly
employed by Mr. Twentyman to prepare the estimate,
without any reference to any competition for the
contract. The work had been done in 1840, but no
demand had been made, nor had the present action
been brought, until May 1842.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 13.
SMITH V. GORDONS.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning
with this case, which in its general bearing is of an
unusual and somewhat important character. It was
conducted for the plaintiff by Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd ; and Sir T. Wilde appeared for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff, in 1833, was captain
of an East India trader, the Frances Charlotte, and
in that year received from the defendants a letter of

credit for 1001. upon their agent at Hobart Town, Van
Diemen's Land. On touching at that port, the credit
was duly honoured by the agent, Mr. M'Laughlin,
who on payment of the 1001. received from plaintiff a
bill of exchange drawn upon a merchant in London,
named Kane, his owner, on whose behalf the letter of
credit was given for the necessary disbursements of
the ship at Van Diemen's Land. This bill of ex-
change was to be remitted to Messrs. Gordon, and in
such cases it was the practice of Mr. M'Laughlin to
have the bill drawn in three parts or duplicates, en-
dorsing each of them ; and to remit one by the first
ship, another by a second, and to retain the third.
On this occasion the first part was put on board the
ship Rifleman, which is supposed to have been lost on
the passage, not having been heard of since 1838.
The defendants having informed their agent in the
colony that the bill had not been received, he remitted
the second part, which, however, he had forgotten to
endorse; but this did not reach England until 1835.
When the defendants sent the bill to the house of
Kane for acceptance he could not be met with ; and,
after considerable delay, the defendants took out a
writ against Captain Smith, and arrested him on
board his ship at Sheerness, in his cabin, at eight
o'clock of the morning on which his vessel was to sail
with convicts to Van Diemen's Land. Smith, who
was well known at Sheerness, where he possessed pro-
perty, paid the amount of the alleged debt and costs
into the hands of the Sheriff, and the case proceeded to
trial, when the defendants failed to establish their
claim as against him. The present action was ac-
cordingly brought for that arrest, as unfounded and
malicious, considerable stress being laid by the
plaintiff upon the fact, that the defendants postponed
the arrest until the morning when he was about to
sail ; whereas they could have arrested him any day
for months before in London, and the manner and
time of the arrest were calculated to have a very bad
effect upon his officers and the convicts under his
care upon the ensuing voyage.
The defence now was that the ground of action
against Captain Smith was real and bona fide, and
that the defendants had waited to the last moment in
the hopes of obtaining their money without harsh
measures.

The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE said that, although the
defendants had not made out their claim in the action
against the plaintiff; yet that did not show that they
.had not such reasonable ground as would justify them
in the steps they had taken. But he thought that, as
the bill had not been duly presented or accepted, they
had not such reasonable ground ; and it would, there.
fore, be for the Jury to consider whether they were
actuated by malicious motives, and what compensa-
tion the plaintiff was fairly entitled to.
The Jury then retired to consider their verdict, and,
after some deliberation, found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, One Farthing.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 13.
MEDOWCROFT V. HIIBININ.

This case involved a nice point of law. The tes-
tator in the case was a Mr. Medowcroft, the father of
the plaintiff, who was married by banns many years
ago—in 1815. His name, however, was entered
wrongly in the church book, " Widowcroft" instead
of Medowcroft, and in consequence of that error, in
the following year a suit for nullity of marriage was
commenced in the Consistorial Court of London, and
the nullity pronounced for by Lord Stowell, who con-
sidered the proceeding a fraudulent one. In the
course of time Medowcroft died, and notwithstand-
ing the judgment of the Court against her marriage,
the lady who had been married to him took out let-
ters of administration as his widow. Since that
period, however, information has, it is alleged, reached
the ear of the plaintiff—the issue of their cohabitation
—that the judgment of the Consistorial Court had
been given on false facts ; that there had been fraud
and collusion in obtaining it ; that the directions
sent to the parish clerk, or rather his daughter, who
entered the name in the church book, gave the correct
name without error ; that there had been no fraud in
giving the names, and as that was the sole ground of
ord Stowell's decision, that decision might be re-
versed by the Court; the son might be considered as
the legitimate issue of a legal marriage and probate
granted to him. The interest amongst the parties is
naturally much increased by the circumstance, that
under the will of an uncle, the plaintiff, if pronounced
legitimate will be entitled to 80,0001. An allegation
on his behalf was this day offered, in which the facts
of the case are stated. The proofs of the validity of

the marriage, on which the Court is asked to reverse
the decision of Lord Stowell, are mainly assertions
of the wife, who since the death of Medoycroft mar-
tied, and is now the widow of Mr. Hubinin, a Lieu-
tenant in the navy ; and who declares that the names
were correctly sent to the parish clerk, and assertions
also (including a dying declaration) of the parish
clerk's daughter, who entered the names into the
church books, that in her belief the name had been
accurately sent, and that the error had occurred
through her carelessness. Other facts are stated in
support of this view of the case, but the declarations
of Mrs. Hubinin and of the clerk's daughter were mainly
relied on. Thus much for the mere circumstances of
the case, but the grand point in dispute is the question
of law whether a Court of Probate could incidentally
set at defiance and overturn the deliberate and direct
judgment of a spiritual Court, given as to the validity
of a marriage—a subject especially within its juris-
diction.

Dr. Addams and Dr. Robinson opposed the ad-
missibility of the allegation ' • and Dr. Phillimore and
Dr. R. Phillimore supported it.
Sir H. J. FUST would take time to consider the
important question of law which was raised upon the
admissibility of this allegation ; but as to the facts
pleaded in it, he feld bound at once to state that the
allegation required very material alterations. Upon
these being made, the Court would decide the grave
and important question of law which had been raised
upon it.