The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-04 00:00:00

s
from the plaintiff, but m opinion clearly, is, that it
most unpropitious moment t that Mr. Pickering, the rusf
orti,
allowed his mind to get so far beyond the bounds °. fore
deuce and probability as to swear that the accounf
fictitious and fraudulent. All I can do at the prose°t
rnent is to dissolve the injunction with costs.
The effect of the judgment is, that the defendant Inaliriti
teed to sue out the fiat of bankruptcy, unless the lc:
prevents him frem doing so by appealing to the Lora
cellor.

V. MARSHALL. Cart
This case, our readersGLASSE
will recollect, came before the ~4
uolamotion to dissolve an injunction restraining the
'
India Company from paying certain East India bonds. ~,,,,
His HoNoun. stated to-day that Mrs. Marshall hial "a" of
him the honour of sending a letter to him on the alibi% for
the case ; that he had mentioned to Mr. Burge, the 00allsehich
the lady, that he should hand the letter to the parties, W.t t
it was his intention to do, but he could not part ,ffit.b l'ghtit
the present moment, because the lady had thougu' i-rAik.
to send two other letters to him, one addressed to the web
of York, and the other to Sir Herbert Taylor, botetth of Wers could
had been returned to her. How two returned l
bear upon the case he did not know. t Tullis
Mr. STUART observed that he appeared for the Ells- the
Company, and he did not take a very lively interest la
matter. that till
Mr. BETHELL was glad to inform the Court
mitt er had been arranged. . coider
The VICE-CHANCELLOR was happy to hear that,
ing it to be a very fit case for amicable adjustment.
i The Court then proceeded to hear motions.

----- n Y.)
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS. --- r - a
'li ./11111
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, Westminster Hall, before. .
• COLERIDGE and a Special Jury.)
HUNTER V. CALDWELL. • +HT gal°l
This was an action brought by the ain-- „id!
the defendant, who is an attorney, for the rece/u,,, btu
sum of 1801. The plaintiff's allegation was that i dee
employed the defendant to recover a debt ef:210;; NI
to him on a bill of exchange by a person narned lin order
defendant neglected to have certain writs duly flle ~ofter
to keep the debt alive : and the consequence was, °rota
several trials, the debt was now barred by tile° or
limitations. ,stioa 1
In the progress of the case, and during the elan" "of ler,
the witnesse=, there appeared to be a great niniber;o- wit
and technical difficulties involved, as to the Moue ; eerP'"
defendant had conducted the proceedings OP to - the
point for the plainti
the . tits leo
An officer ofcourt proved that certain
Pen
to
cause had been filed by defendant at too late a Pe'''. is
effect. the le POO
In the course of the cross-examination of s pee i
appeared that when writs are brought to the °dines
v-
-0d to
when it is too late to file them, the fact is ste"
attorney, who brings them, by the officer, and the eitS
then tiled. , to %It
Another witness was examined at great length Of frit/ 1
the practice was in reference to the bringing in ° but tbs
the officer to have them filed. He had no doubt 0 $Oll
writs should be taken in within five months; taking
filing meant the same thing. .
dee vie
The ease for the plaintiff having closed, the thitattt:l
Counsel submitted that the rule of law Wa,
any doubt existed as to what the duty potr%tble 46t°0
was in certain Courts and causes, he was ~ other°, As' t
charge of negligence, because he, as well as all of
liable to error. He cited several cases in support v(1)8109
He continued to argue at some length that the A Oa 1.11
to go to the jury, which the Court overrue"' oed"'
Learned Counsel then '
proceeded to address thePl
not concluded when our report left.

----- ..._
14, •
EXCHEQUER.—(THIS P'
liAlt°V-0.
,Sittings after Term, before the LORD CHIEF
Common Jury.)
il#3'"
Tifor.N.err V. HAINES• d re_a
This was an action of debt for money had al!
to. As
which the defendant had pleaded the general iss.„a 1...-
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Wordsworth appears eur
plaintiff, and Mr. Humphreys for the defendant; re, piI
The plaintiff was a publican living at Wr6ns:,,tioll'
bury, near Islington, and the defendant, the
a' ,tl
38, Moorgate-street. of 3171 r;
The action was brought to recover the 9130iioire— 4
money received by the defendant, under the Au? i
cumstances :—On .the ..7th of July, - i,tl;"'ed 14 OF
year, the defendant, who had been re'e'llbe osp010;
purpose by Mr. Walker, the proprietor of t ,e hy or
Horses, public-house at Chelsea, put up for 0!: ia tilde
auction, at Garraway's, the lease and goodro.'l sen?
a public-house, called the Bell, wine-vaults, Thereettfeil
The house was bought at the sale by 141.n„d be;eg 11:
plaintiff, for the Fum of 1,5751., ‘"- Jigs" "
to the defendant as a deposit 315/., substquen flyol.o,
agreement to complete the purchase in the nsuteel3l oftllie
due course the abstract of title was delivered lg, tb5,,,t11,1
attorney, but having ascertained that Mr. Wiunt the Pvell,
of the property, had employed puffing bidders "eutlis tollr•
plaintiff determined upon repudiating the saleeoeppli,"
of fraud. He therefore instructed his solicitor the del tiee
defendant to return the deposit money, but ec
,Ai
refused to do so, and hence the origin of the Prof• fact* or
Evidence having been adduced to prove
Mr. HUMPHREYS contended that there had big clige3ooll
committed, either by the defendant or hY 1.4,44, oil,
thesebeee eot, lie
Walker, and in equity, if not in law, t,,14'.e P.,:ieittsl;;Farrs
compelled to complete the purchase. Ile ~'„,,esou,lidli;
party named Robinson, the proprietor of the Li— tee i3'a
bowl public-house, in the City, and Mr. F,lBeeoeo el..
had bid for the lease—the first 1,2051., and t'e- 0° 1
but they did so in a bona fide and legitirnstaeot. di,
without any fraud or collusion with the deo of if ?celo
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the vendor t the F
,A;
had a right to employ puffing bidders to Pre' was :Jetty
going under a certain sum, but the vendor le, is-
ia te;
make that fact known to the parties at tile se eidge'ooo4lo
they might be on their guard, and watch and Jervi, bele
140
selves that they did not bid for the prop Ott) 04
actual value. If such notice were not WO" 0,10
the sale became null and void. com° 104
Mr. HUMPHREYS urged that the sale W3.8,,-, ado' jai
ordinary way, and all the bids were bona nu'
The LORD CHIEF BARON suggested that t.l3,etitreler,/bii4
better consent to take a verdict for the ei. 00,
leave to move to enter a nonsuit. Ih;,l,etbe et
the question before the Court, and then it Imo' De .•
torily settled. t,- alaoheliellf6til
Mr. HUMPHREYS—Supposing the Court with V. 0
opinion that this is not such an interference.A thev'eit°,
nary course of auction as to make the sale c°ll heli,ec 0t,,1
will of course be nonsuited. For my irt;urf.,lreesseTa4
universal practice to have bidders of tl';',.s -At ,Als- Pril,,tik
the plaintiff must have been aware of "' iveeber
shall contend that the fact that such a Itbet " di .
existed was a sufficient notice to the plaint"
Or
ders would be present. „aairv7,„.,ob'
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought it r—decie- oev
notice, but this would be for the full Court to id Or 51,
ea
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said of course he c- r3l •
~/f P ,00
jection to his Lordship's suggestion. ~.in,o .0 1
A verdict was therefore recorded for the Pe en'
leave being given to the defendant to move ill
suit. PA - ie4
--ill° ittlWl
COMMON PLEAS.—( nd bscil -I
The Court sat at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, 3--ed at
&Olen ,)
several cases of no public interest, °—
twelve o'clock. 4 PA
01,..,
SHERIFFS' COURT.--(1100,0 di
(Before Mr. Underheriff 1310 113"ree
The plaintiff in ctLbEismEacrrtion°. is"tAlipenroP._ie,te°riifeeleccitelir
Inn, Old Bailey, and the defendant is a fiVe. ii
rci,
in Newgate- street. The claim was for 7•inn ;4erj APt
ter's rent of a part of a warehouse in tileirdebt t bye
The defendant pleaded that be was n® defeetl‘ereeooo;
Mr. MANNLNG stated the case. Ihe Os lofiet l
some years occupied an upper floor ill,ed to a the itlati
question, but in Michaelmas last be rerutriidere n° retel4ell‘
In January or February following lle. l'e,thig ,1:, e eesl
plaintifl; who refused to accept it, us.'" 01' Or'l
lte,' a 1
notice. Defendant, however, left the eeeoa to cit
in the counting-house, and paid tll3_, iesvitle
~ P
rent, but it was clear that the merev coottg-joi"ocer
did not exonerate him from hie laid .00.0
respect of the tenancy, it wl jot to,Vere "TO;
"Roscoe on Evidence," that it was suluc_ that 060. tiol7l
pation to render it prima facie evideard to 11,0.004 P
general hiring which entitled the lananu durl,Pwe t.,`: 414
present was a case of constructive occupat'; 'Aid'" refry',
for.which the rent was claimed, and it
Iss:ulantar_lrefelse°oeGt'
ahepawratsy mighthlav, have had
°tlClCOUuPgahtir an'
let tbe
Ftbet
put up, unless the premises are actually
oc' tre'
which would be a legal surrender. ,0 Aetll'"erter of
biii °let to alit*
,opeti/So,
Witnesses were called, who proved teof ouegaideece tbei
for four or five mouths, and the nal'inist so ric es or/400'
Mr. THOMAS submitted that there W, boil out 0 OOP
general hiring. It was true that it hall,,,,eut fods „do
defendant had occupied the premises for 170'-'lf e te 013;to
and it was admitted that he had Paid but t 113 P
That this did not prove a general hiring, f3s
and that plaintiff must be nonsuited. l hiria 130: bt,ol,
eg nera_. 09 9
_,..iingtio.
tphreerc°-LironetrarYcitt°lll'- ve t° 09-
Mr. MANNING repeated that the
by the payment of rent unless the contrair; oat ;plied
The IhsiDER-SHERIFF—Suppose 3 P.ell,t to be I frit' •
and took a house for three months, is • of
it was a yearly tenancy? IS t- 00
ay ti°,,,e 4
Dir. AtTINANDENRDI-GSH—ECertainly,
httinutielt
„a --t Ifirileo;t-
Mr. THOMAS said that there was no ri for 10 tbe,erol
not for a quarter or half-year, and apP „„neill .gy
the Court above to enter a nonsuit, I"rif„For ' ac,
considered the evidence insufficient to 0 , oif the
hiring. ithe lariludif tp°
The UNDER-SHERIFF replied .n
_utptit
fendant would submit to a verdict rieT,'..
_.,,,he to )
Mr. THOMAS said that the plaintitl ul.e. Or
a
nonsuit. ~ie tto ~If
Mr. MANNING refused. 4 nom--° ea.,-- •av
Mr. THOMAS said his client would Ile'Lts dal% pliii.,to
diet, but would go to the jury on the lrlfd that he
Witne,ses were then called, who de,Pc7o a denhef latr
let the upper floor without the knowiegg bescl.,o bor."
complained at the place being let o:.wer,,sid tbst If p 00701;
friendly at that time, and
fendant would go down to the floor heetion be be
watild off
plaintiff .10w; for,d be Do of
was not given to the other partY, an
should be beefendstl el
Defendant said rathoe than that ~
ff also let d ,co .
re,
the under floor, prof idifg the plai trl
___ that deo';ioe VI osi
~.../vas.tn°naift °f of ivoterritotit
aupgrpaensaseryL,ieann,dhmatadtheecegrrtamanaraylterationta ,uiveri twe,
ifor.;100,
pairs made; in consequence, 6e- i-inntity 0, ad toe. ti,-.1
done by candle light, and a large q no
"FeralOblig eottiis
spoilt, and defendant was in consefees.d
e_olo.
his machinery, and that plaintiff h.d,hati they 'Or were term
lie would not make the repairs, and 1
-"i they %Au; ~,
liars, &c., and the sooner they gel
rather have the place for a harinl'etauthe hettleifuldtiff 011 Oil
and defendont then sent the key. T.,liat whredrer,e_Yd? ssl,,oe
wards called for his rent at Lady- but defend Ali itogi
ought to have another quarter's eu
leer is d cePt
the qua • t'ff lie
"No ; I have given up, before „ plata 1 , fit',
have had two months occupation. fto rer
;tvo n d
quarter's rent, and said very well.
ed the verile. 'All 'Pee?
Mr. MANNING, in re
nesses, and contended that nothing P"‘"
d ie there •irg, tie tlf
ply, question .
_A bee, sho..a ot . 0 .
there had been a general hiring, an tin virtu,„A Le
then no surrender could be made
that _OO peo
either by notice or agreement; "
ceePtedie le
" Statute of Frauds." i the keY i3liaantgl) •
The UNDER-SHERIFF--Or lIII.ESS e not in "ked• er.j oti.
Mr. THOMAS—Or unless they
seenwe
as be iti,...„,„
pair or saying a person might go Dery ~.20 no u_r
_or,
The UNDRet-SHERIFF.—If the gren,', the eAr,eeeilotieti
according to agreement, there is tuelre owotieha Tci, 00,0%
Mr. MameiNet disputed that th . NT3f,„, polot!.ceers,ree
The UNDER-StiERIFF, in summil.lg;:!'ioessi yZie. :.rt;
was whether the defendant actually Iliii not be
c;oriedo?
to agreement ; if lie bad not he w°t,",ed been__ suc.; we&
question was whether the agrement "ad beenisio
_•,..
the next question was whether, If tell , ere .,„ , . " Tbe
__flusedetuoo, it
tract, the plaintiff had accepted th. ,K-7Y.,b he 11 tiie aiti
not bound to send back the key altuottot affaL 0 'ou fol-
cept. The statute of frauds flu ner,!: oyie_ it 0900
depended on the evidence ; them! l't Lds!, if it
go when you like" would not be
o,tlFitey, I,‘"
lowed up by the actual acceptance t the
then the surrender was perfect.
Verdict for the plaiutiil for 71. 10i.