The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 22.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lord Campbell.

CHARTER V. SIR J. TRETELYANT.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were re-
sumed to-day, bur. not having concluded at four o'clock, the
further consideration of the case was adjourned to Monday.
WHITE V. CUDDEN-JUDGMENT.
Lord COTTENHA3I gave judgment in this case, which was
argued a few days since, reversing the judgment of the Court
below.

ROLLS' COURT, April 22.
Lord LANGDALE heard motions to-day.
BETON U. WATERHOUSE.
Mr. PEMBERTON, applied on behalf of the plaintiffs in this
cause, to have book accounts and other documents produced by
the defendants, who were agents of a certain plantation estate
in the West Indies, in which the plaintiffs had an interest.
Mr. TURNER. opposed the application, on the ground that
greatinconvenience would result to the defendants, who
resided in Liverpool, and were in extensive business
as agents f.,r other parties, from their being obliged to
produce their books in London, to be detained there till the
accounts in question were examined. The defendant was will-
ing to I'm nish copies of all the parts of their hooks that related
to the matters in question, and would consent that those topics
be read against them in the same manner as the original ac-
counts, with which the copies could be compared.
Lord LANGDALE thought the proposition of the defendant
very reasonable.

Mr. PEMBERTON said that it would greatly inconvenience
the
.plaintiffs to send down a commission to Liverpool for the
purposa of making copies of the accounts.
Lord LANG DALE said inconvenience must arise in either
case to both parties. At all events the plaintiffs were entitled
to have the accounts produced. Such was the rule of the
Court, and an order to that effect should be made.

It was ultimately agreed that the books should be examine,
at Liverpool.

VICE-CHANCELLORS" COURT, April 22.
( Before Vice-Chancellor Baucx.)
ROSE V. CLARKE.
The Court was engaged the entire day with the arguments
in this part-heard cause, which came on for further directions.
It was totally devoid of interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WiottAx. )
ROWER. V. COOPER.
The bill was filed in this cause by the plaintiff, as purchaser of
a small property near Southampton, against the defendant, who
was the vendor, and who had refused to perform tht specifiic
contract entered into at the sale.
The case was entered into at considerable length, but its de-
tails were quite uninteresting.
Short causes, unopposed petitions, and cause petitions, oc-
cupied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England the
whole day.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, April 22.
RICHARDS V. DYKE AND ANOTHER.

In this case the point to be decided Was, whether in cases of
non-payment of Church-rates, under the sem of 101.,
the validity of which has not disputed, the Ecclesi-
astical Court possessed co-ordinate jurisdiction with
the Magistrates ; whether, in fact, it was competent
to Churchwardens to sue persons in the Ecclesiastical Court
for non-payment of a Church-rate under 101., without summon-
ing them before a Magistrate, and ascertaining whether it
was a mere refusal of payment, or whether the validity of the
rate was disputed.
The arguments were wholly of a technical nature, and turned
upon the construction to be given in the wording of one of the
sections 54th of Geo. 3.

The COURT took time to consider the point.
DUNN V. COOMBE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, whose name has
been so frequently before the public as the suitor of Miss
Burdett Coats, against the defendant, the Magistrate of
Hatton Garden, for false imprisonment The defendant had
committed the plaintiff to prison under certain articles of the
peace, which this Court had subsequently determined to be bad.
The case was tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at Hertford,
and the Jury had given him a farthing damages.
The plaintiff in person now moved for a new trial, unless de-
fendant would pay 35/_ because he had proved special damages
to that amount, and that would have carried costs. It appeareC.
that the Learned Judge had refused to certify.
Lord DENNIAN said the Court would consult the Learned
Judge who had tried the case, and give judgment in a few days.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 22.

THE BANE OF ENGLAND V. TOMICINS.-THE EXCHEQUER-

BILL FRAUD.

This case, which excited considerable interest, as connected
with the recent frauds in Exchequer-bills, was tried before
Lord Abinger, at the sittings after Hilary Term, at Guildhall,
when a verdict was taken for the Bank—Damages 8,0001.
Mr. GILL now moved for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned Lord who
tried the cause. It appeared on the trial that the defendant
had deposited eleven Exchequer-bills for 1,000/. each with the
Bank, and that the Bank advanced 11,0001. on this security,
under the agreement that if the money advanced was not forth
I coming on a certain day, the Bank might sell the Exchequer-
bills. The dfeendant paid 3,0001. within the time specified,
and had back three of his Exchequer-bills, but the others re-
mained in the plaintiff's hands, and those Exchequer-bills after-
wards appeared to have been forged as respected the sig-
nature. Lord Monteagle said, on the trial, that his name,
which appeared to the Exchequer-bills was forged, and Mr.
Percival, who was the only person authorised to sign Lord
Monteagle's name, also swore that the signature of Lord
Monteagle was a forgery. It clearly appeared, however, that
the paper on which the Exchequer-bills was printed, the print-
ing, and the stamp or seal of the Exchequer-office, were ge-
nuine. In other words, the Exchequer-bills which the de-
fendant deposited with the Bank, were genuine in every respect
brit as regarded the signature.
Mr. Baron PARKA—The case is quite clear. The Bank
was to advance money on genuine bills. The bills depositied
were forgeries. The Bank had, therefore, a right to demand
the re-payment of the money advanced. If the defendant had
any claim on the Exchequer Bill-office, on the ground of neg-
ligence, that was entirely a different question. The defendant
might bring an action on the case, or his claims would be taken

into consideration with those of other persons who held the
forged bills. '
The other Barons concurred, and the bill was refused.

THORNTON V. PORTMAN.-THE GURNEY CASE.

This case was tried before Lord Abinger, at the last sittings
for London ; when a verdict went for the plaintiff—Damages,
1,250/.

Mr. GILL now moved for leave to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, pursuant
to leave named on the trial. The Learned Counsel stated the
case as given at the trial, with the result, and in conclusion
said the application now made to the Court was founded on the
fact that the agreement was illegal, and could not be sustained.
The COURT inquired whether the illegality had been pleaded.
Mr. COLE admitted that the illegality had not been pleaded.
The question for the Court was, whether it was necessary to
plead the illegality, as it appeared that the facts establishing
the illegality had been given in evidence by the plaintiff.
Baron PARKE said, it had been decided In a late case in the
Court of Queen's Bench, and he thought rightly, that illegality
was not an available defence for a defendant, unless specially
pleaded, although it appeared in the plaintiff's case.
Mr. GILL submitted that the argument in this case was in
furtherance of what, in the eye of the law, was illegal.
Baron PARKE said, it was contrary to law to gamble, but he
was not prepared to say it was contrary to law to pay gaming
debts. The Court did not decide in this case that the contract
was illegal, but, under the new rules, if such a defence was to
be set up, it must be specially pleaded.
The other Barons concurred.—Rule refused.

FRIDAY.
JONES V. TARLITON.

This case was an action of trover for a cargo of pigs, tried
before Mr. Justice Coltman at the last Assizes for Anglesea.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of 1001.
The plaintiff was a dealer in pigs in the Island of Anglesea,
and the defendant was the owner of a steamer engaged in the
conveyance of goods between Anglesea and Liverpool. The
plaintiff having become indebted to the defendant for certain
charges of freight, the pigs, which gave rise to the action,
were seized by him, on their being placed on board
of his vessel ; and he afterwards kept possession of them in
payment of his claims. It had been proved on the trial that a
notice had been hung up in the office of the defendant, stating
that goods shipped on board his vessel would be seized in pay-
ment of the sums due to him ; but the notiee was not produced
at the trial.

Air. ANDREWS now applied for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be granted, and the verdict for the plain-
tiff set aside, on the ground that the Learned Judge had im-
properly placed out of the consideration of the Jury the notice
in the office of the defendant.

The COURT refused to grant the rule. The notice was not
sufficient, or, at all events, it should have been produced at the
trial.

PENNY V. SMITH.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, for
the recovery of the purchase-money and the enforcing the pur-
chase of certain copyhold premises. The case was tried before
Mr. Justice Patteson, at the last Assizes for Staffordshire, and
a verdict was found for the p:aintiff, damages 2751.
Mr. ALEXANDER now applied why a verdict should not be
entered for the defendant, on the ground that the only evidence
adduced against him was that of his attorney, who had also
acted as the attorney of the plaintiff.
The COURT was of opinion that the rule could not be granted.
There was nothing to show that the attorney acted as the agent
of the defendant on the subject on which be had given his
evidence.