The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 16.
(Guildhall Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DEN•

MAN and London Common Jury.)
WATTS V. DEVET.

This was an action brought by a cab-proprietor
against a brassfounder for damages done to his cab by
defendant's truck. The collision took place on Black-
friars-bridge. The cab was going one way and de-
fendant's truck, loaded heavily with metal and lashed
to a cart, was coming the other. A collision took
place, and the wheels of the cab were carried away.
The defence was that the accident had occurred
from the carelessness of the cab-driver. The evi-
dence, as is usual in all cases of running down, was
very contradictory.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, M. 9s. The case lasted the whole morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 16.
PRICE V. SEELEY.-SPECIAL JURY.
This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages for a malicious prosecution.
Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Hayes conducted the
case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Platt and Mr. Watson
were for the defendant.
The defendant in this action is one of the vestrymen
of St. Dunstan's parish. In the yerr 1838, a new
school-room and vestry-room were erected. When
the school-room was finished, a wall was commenced
en the north side against Clifford's Inn. The plain-
tiff's premises were on the west side. Two labourers
were employed in clearing the foundation of a fence
wall, as an old fence wall was standing at the time.
While the labourers were engaged in this, the plain-
tiff came up to them, and said they should not go on,
as it was an infringement of his property. As fast
as the bricks were put up he kicked them down. As
the workmen were attempting to put the bricks up,
he pushed them (the men) down, and otherwise as-
saulted them. Some of the vestrymen came and re-
monstrated with him, but he still persisted; and a po-
liceman was called in, and the plaintiff conveyed to
Guildhall Police Court, but the Magistrate would not
entertain the complaint, as he said it must be the
subject of a civil action. The plaintiff had com-
menced an action against the vestry, in which action
the defendants obtained a verdict, and the cause was
removed into the Court of Error, where it still re-
mains. The vestry, as the Magistrate refused to ad-
judicate, then indicted the plaintiff for the assault on
the workmen. He removed the case by certiorari
into the Court of Queen's Bench, and the cause was
delayed for upwards of two years, when the plaintiff
applied to have it decided one way or the other.
When the case was called on in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Lord Denman said the facts had already been
stated in an action in that Court, and he thought it
would be better not to waste the public time. In
consequence of this, Sir F. Pollock, who appeared for
the vestry, said he would not offer any evidence, and
the plaintiff was acquitted. The plaintiff now brought
this action to recover damages for malicious prosecu-
tion.

Evidence was adduced to show that no assault had
ever been committed; and, on the part of the defen-
dant, the two labourers were put into the box, toge-
ther with several of the vestry, who swore distinctly
that the plaintiff had violently, and without any pro-
vocation, assaulted the two men.

Mr. Hams, in reply, contended at great length
that these witnesses were interested parties.
The Cnixr JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
said the only question they had to consider was
whether there were just grounds for the prosecution
in the plaintiff having assaulted the two men.
The Jury retired ; and, after an absence of nearly
two hours, returned into Court with a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages 40s.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 16.
IN RE HENRY MILLS.
The insolvent had been a cab-proprietor, and attri-
buted his insolvency to a severe accident by being ruu
over at Westminster on the day the Queen proceeded
to open Parliament, in consequence of which he was
confined to his bed for several weeks.--Discharged.
IN RE WILLIAM ABBOTT.
The hearing of this case had been adjourned from
the 27th of November, to enable the insolvent to
produce certain deeds and a warrant of attorney exe-
cuted in favour of his brother.
It appeared that the insolvent, who was a surgeon,
was the inventor of some important improvements in
the ventilation and heating of buildings, and was en-
titled to a large property by right of his wife, in
Kent, which it was alleged he had made over to his
brother without consideration, and merely for the
purpose of defrauding his creditors.
The case was again adjourned, in order to get the
mr. ieonildve m or
istsi
evidence of his brother, as to whether the transaction
was bona
doot hensecerrr i bed wiut
ii
e
IN RE THOMAS COLEMAN.-LOAN SOCIETIES.
The
ns fioen
LRi himselfupoas.n
laoogkroi :ger, carry-
ing on business in Leicester-square
schedules, said he perceived the' names of abouotvefrOrtthye
different loan societies. The fact of incurring reck-
lessly such liabilities was most inexcusable, and could
enable the insolvent to
not
Thebe scuasffiecwieanstlay p d
jroeurrnobe(aited.
to
lodge some papers in Court.
IN RE RICHARD HUNTER.
In this case the insolvent was in such a bad state of
health as to preclude the possibility of his attendence
in Court, and a medical certificate to that effect having
been put in, the hearing was ordered to stand for the
20th of January.