Star.
London, England, 1830-06-24 00:00:00

COTTON V. JAMES.

The AvroawzY.Gartzasn, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr.
KILLS, showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr. F. POLLOCK
in Michelmus Term last, to set aside the verdict found fur the
plaintiff, and enter 'a nonsuit.—The circumstances out of which the
case arose have been frequently reported. The action was brought
by Mr. Cotton, a surveyor and architect, of Great St. Helen's,
against Mr. John James, an attorney, of Bucklersbury, foe mali-
ciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, suing out a com-
mission of bankruptcy against the plaintiff. At the trial It was
proved that the question of the validity of the commission was
mooted in an action of trespass against the defendant for seising the
plaintiff's goods under the commissioners' warrant, and upon that
issue a verdict was found for the plaintiff. It was also proved that
the defendant afterwards, at his own expense, obtained a supersedes*
of the commission. These were the principal facts relied upon, to
show that the commission had been taken out without probable
cause, and the Jury found for the plaintiff. The rule to set aside
the verdict and enter a nonsnit had been obtained, on the ground
that as the commissioners, who had adjudicated under the commis-
sion, had found that there was a petitioning creditor's debt, a tn.
ding, and an act of bankruptcy, it was incumbent on the plain.
tiff to have given evidence, from which the Jury could have in.
ferred a want of reasonable or probable cause, and in the absence
of such evidence the action was not maintainable. The plain-
tiffs Counsel, in showing cause against the rule, now contended,
that there was sufficient evidence at the trial for the Jury to infer an
absence of reasonable or probable cause, and that therefore the ver-
dict ought not to be disturbed.
Mr. F. PoLtocz, Mr. DENMAN, and filr. COMYN, addressed
the Court in support of the rule, and contended, that although the
Commissioners in adjudicating under the commission had acted
mistakenly, there was no evidence of malice on the part of the de.
fendant or want of probable cause for suing out the commission.—
The verdict which had been obtained in this action had been
used against the defendant for the purpose of preventing him from
filling an important judicial situation to which he had been appoint-
ed in the city of London. After the Learned Counsel had argued
at great length,
Lord TENTERDEN said the Court would take time to look into
the authorities.

Alr. F. POLLCCK said, that the defendant would pay the sum
awarded by the Jury (1501.) if the plaintiff would be content to re.
mire it without costs.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL did not assent.
TNIELZWAY V. SPOTTIBWODE ESQ. AND OTHERS.
_ _

In this case the verdict obtained by the plaintiff was sought to be
impeached on the ground of excessive damages.
The action had been brought against the late sheriff of Middlesex
and one of his bailiffs (William Levy,) for taking the pods of the
plaintiff, John :Thirleway, under an execution, at the suit of a
person of the name of Neck, against Elisabeth Wyatt, other-
wise Thirleway. It appeared at the trial that Elizabeth
Thirleway was the wife of the plaintiff, and had carried on the
business of a milliner, in Holles•street, Cavendish-square,but with.
out the interference of her husband, who had been in service as a
butler; and she had sometimes used the name of Wyatt, and
sometimes that of Thirleway. The execution had been conti.
need in the house from the 31st of July to the 11th of November,
when it was set aside by:a rule of the Court of Common Pleas. It
was alleged as special damage that the plaintiff had, in consequence
of the execution, been prevented from letting apartments in his
house ; and it was proved that the bailiff's man had been paid Si. ed.
a day for continuing in possession, besides his board, &c. On the
part of the defendants, it was contended, that as the wife had carried
on business as a femme sole, with the knowledge of the husband, be
was not entitled to more than nominal damages for the trespass
complained of. The Jury, however, found for 1001.
Mr. CAMPBELL and MLWIGHTMAN now showed cause against
the rule, and contended that the 1001. was not more than sufficient
to compensate the plaintiff for the loss and inconvenience he had
sustained.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that William Levy, the bailiff,
who was the real defendant in the action, was a little unpopular
with Juries in Westminster-hall, and he had no doubt, that to that
circumstance was to be ascribed the fact of the finding for such large
and extravagant damages.
After the case had been argued on both sides, the parties con.
tented, at the suggestion of Lord Tenterden, to leave it to the Court
to say for what sum the verdict should stand—and their Lordships
then fixed the sum at 501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 23.
ALLCOCK V. COCK.

This was an action which has been tried once or twice before, re.
ladve to wreck.

On a former day, Mr. Scrjeant ADAMS obtained a rule to remove
the venue, which had been laid in Middlesex, to Lancashire. The
grounds of the application were on a number of affidavits, which
stated that all the defendant's witnesses resided in Lincolnshire ;
that they were all aged persons, and, without any single exception,
in the humbler classes of life. With respect to one of thew per.
sons, named John Johnson, the affidavits stated he was a moat ma-
terial witness; that he had attained the advanced age of 85 years,
and that the journey to London, from the place where he lived, not
less than 103 miles distant, could not fail of proving exceedingly
if not fatal to him.
da3;1470u Sesrleant WILD this morning showed cause against the rule.
Mr. Serjeant ADAMS supported the rule.
Rule discharged.