The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-04 00:00:00

DOE V. SYDENHANI.

This case was tried in Devonshire, when a verdict was
had for the defendant, with liberty to apply for a nonsuit on
certain points, one of which was non-compliance with a co-
venant in a lease, which was to the effect that " suit and
service" was to be done at the Manor Court of Moorstow.
Rule nisi to be granted, in the event of a nonsuit being re-
fused after the Court shall have considered the case.

NEW TRIAL PAPER.
BENNET V. DUNCOMBE.

This ease was one involving a question of a technical law
point, arising out of one as to the right of a mortgager as
against a landlord, to recover rent from a tenant. The ar-
gument occupied a considerable portion of time, but the case
itself was not of the least public interest, nor were any of
the other cases heard up to the rising of the Court, being,
for the most part, trials arisEng out of breaches of contracts
of various sorts between private parties.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)

The Judges of this Court, after breakfasting with the Lord
Chancellor, came down in procession to Westminster Hall,
and took their seats cn the bench about half-past one o'clock.

VALIANCE G. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.

Mr. Sergeant C. JONES moved for a rule to show cause why
there should not be a new trial in this case, or why the judg-
ment should not be arrested. The action which was triedbefore
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, at the last Surrey Assizes, was
brought to recover damages for a libel upon the character of
the plaintiff, published in the shape of a printed account of a
speech delivered by the Duke of Brunswick to a jury at the
Sheriff's Court in Middlesex, in a cause of "The Duke of
Brunswick v. Milner." To make the proceedings intelligible
to the readers of this journal, it must be premised that on the
17th of September, 1842, a paragraph appeared in the Lan-
caster Guardian, a paper published at Preston, falsely im-
puting to the Duke of Brunswick that he had been taken
into custody, by mistake, as a member of the swell mob.
An action ter libel was brought by the Duke against Mr.
Milner, the registered proprietor of the Lancaster Guardian,
and the defendant allowed judgment in that action to go
against him by default. Upon a writ of inquiry, which was
executed before the Under-Sheriff of Middlesex on the sth
of June last, the Duke of Brunswick conducted his own case,
and read, as his address to the jury, a printed copy of a
speech, which was afterwards proved to have been put into
type from manuscript by direction of the Duke's valet, Med-
hurst...ln this address, which was read with so much rapidity
that no one then in Court could take down two consecutive
sentences, the Duke of Brunswick charged Mr. Valiance, who
had been empl, yed as his attcrney, with delaying the pro-
gress of the suits which he had desired him to institute, in
consequence of his friendship for Milner, the defendant. A
copy of this :speech, a few days after the conclusion of the
inquiry before the Under-Sheriff, found its way into the
hands of a person who was present at the trial, and Mr. Val-
lance thereupon brought the present action against the Duke,
and obtained 200/. damages. The Learned Sergeant now con-
tended that the verdict ought to be set aside on three dis-
tinct grounds—first, on account of the improper reception of
evidence by the Learned Chief Justice; secondly, for mis-
direction ; and thirdly, because the damages were excessive.
He argued also that the judgment ought to be arrested, upon
the ground that two out of the three counts in the declara-
tion did not disclose any libellous matter affecting the cha-
racter of the plaintiff.
The COURT, after a little deliberation, said it might be
well to consider how far the evidence given by Mr. Pearson
at the trial relating to the conduct and character of the plain-
tiff was admissible; and therefore, upon the first ground
moved, a rule nisi for a new trial might be granted. They
saw, however, no reason for thinking that there was any
misdirection in leaving the evidence of publication to the
jury, and there was certainly no ground for saying that the
damages were excessive. Neither did it appear to them that
the judgment ought to be arrested, and, therefore, upon all
the points urged but the first, the rule must be refused.

BUILST V. BOULTON.

Mr. Sergeant RILES moved, by leave of the Learned Judge
who tried the cause, Mr. Justice Erle, for a rule to show
cause why the damages given by the jury in this case,
amounting to 3411. 12s. Bd., should not be reduced to the
sum of 301., or the sum of 1071. The action, which was
tried at the last Guildhall sittings, was brought for the
recovery of a sum of 130/., with interest, on a promissory note,
also to recover wages for work done as a domestic servant.
The defendant, besides other pleas, pleaded the Statute
of Limitations to the whole declaration. At the trial it
appeared that the plaintiff, who was very much advanced in
life, had formerly held the situation of a nurse at the Man-
chester Lunatic Asylum, and that about the year 1826 she
left that situation, and went to live in the house of the defend-
ant. Upon her coming to reside in his house she lethim have
the whole of her savings, amounting to 1301., for which he
gave her the promissory note in question. She remained in
his family seventeen years, and the capacity in which she
lived there formed a great subject cf condition at the trial, the
case for the plaintiff being that she was a servant during that
period, while the defendant maintained that she was boarded
as a friend of the family, from whom a little domestic assist-
ance was occasionally received in return. The jury gave as
damages,-234l 12s. Bd. for the promissory note and inte-
rest ; 771. for wagesfor the first eleven years, at the rate of
71. per annum ; and 301. for the last six years, at the rate of
51. per annum. The Learned Sergeant now admitted that
some money, 301., was due to the plaintiff; but he contended
that there was no evidence to show that the sovereign paid
by the defendant to the plaintiff upon her going away was
paid on ace ouni of the promissory note or the wages, or that
it was paid by way of part payment of a greater debt ; and
he cited " Tippets v. Heane," 1 C. M. and R., 252; " Mills v.
Fowkes," 5 Bing., N. C., 455 ; and " Waugh v. Cope," 6 M.
and W., 824.—The Court granted the rule.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 3.
(Bef ire Sir H. JENNER FusT.)
Prayers were read in the hall, and the Court opened with
the customary formalities.