The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-28 00:00:00

ATTENDANCE OF COiJNSEL,

At the conclusion of this case,
Mr. KELLY applied to the Court to permit him to
argue a case, which the Court had disposed of in the
early part of the morning, without argument, in conse-
quence of the non-attendance of Counsel to represent
Mr. Kelly's clients. The Learned Gentleman stated,
that at the time the case was called on, he was engaged
in the Court of Exchequer.
Lord DENmAN—We cannot help that ; you should
have been here. The Court always endeavours to ac-
commodate Counsel if it can, and if anything of this sort
cccurs, it always is because Counsel do not seek to ac-
commodate the Court. ,

Mr. KELLY said, his brief had not been delivered to
him until 12 o'clock,in consequence of some mistake on
the part of his clerk.
Lord DENMAN—Is that any mason why the Court
should interfere ? It was a. piece of very gross
negligence.
Mr. KELLY—BO, my Lord, my clients will suffer
very great injustice.
Lord DENNAN—Not from the Court.
Mr. KELLY—Really, ray Lord, I feel that my clients,
through no fault of their own, will suffer great injustice.
Lord DENMAN—I agree with you there, but it is not
from the Court that they. suffer injustice, The case was
called on the first in the day, and no one appeared for
your .clients. Was no other gentleman with you ?
Mr. KELLY—Yes, my Lord, Mr. Thomas, but he was
not instructed to argue.

Lord DENMAN—fIe should have been here then to
have explained where you were. Do you not think you
have said quite enough on the subject, Mr. Kelly ?
Mr. KELLY.—Really, my Lord, I feel that the wrong
done to my client is irremediable.
Mr. Justice PATTEsos.—You should have been here.
This Court is not to be kept waiting, because gentlemen
choose to practice in two or three Courts at once. You
will learn, by and by, I suppose, to practise only in one
Court. The conrse we have dopted in this case, we
have adopted in several other cases during the present
term, and we shall adopt in every case under similar
circumstances.

The matter then dropped, the Court refusing to enter-
tain Mr. Kelly's application.
The Court was engaged the whole morning in hearing argu-
ments in cases in the Crown Paper, none of which were of
any public interest. The greater number of them were cases
of disputed settlements of paupers.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 27.
Lord Abinger took his seat on the bench this morning, for
the first time during the present term.

JONES V. GOODY.

This was an action of trespass tried before Chie
Justice Tindal, at the last assizes for the county of
Suffolk. The verdict was for the p'aintiff, with 51., the
cost of the suit, subject to the opinion of the Court in
the case. The defendant was one of the Commissioners
of cleansing and paving for the borough of Sudbury. In pur-
suance of an order from some of his colleagues, communicated
to him through tLe clerk, he proceeded to widen a drain in the
suburbs of the borough ; and in doing so, he cut off part of a
field, the property of the plaintiff. This was the ground of the
action which the plaintiff brought. The main question in dis-
pute was, whether the defendant could plead, in his defence,
the statute which protects a public officer, who. while he has
misfaken his duty, has acted, as he imagines, in the discharge
of his office.

Mr. KELLY contended that the defendant could not plead
the statute, on the ground that he had not been legally em-
powered to act at all on the occasion, inasmuch as he had not
received an order from five of the Commissioners in the first
instance, as the law required. The Learned Gentleman fur-
ther contended, that a tender of 101. which had been made to
the plaintiff, on condition that lie stayed the action, should be
paid into Court.
The Cottax was of opinion that the defendant was protected
by the statute, inasmuch as be was a public officer, and as he
had reason to believe that he was only acting in the discharge of
his duty. The Learned Judges did not think that the tender
of 10/. should be paid into Court, as the plaintiff had refused
it, and bad preferred to bring the action.

COURT OF 'COMMON • PLEAS, April 27.
CALLENlilift V. DITRICII.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an English
merchant, against the defendant, a Prussian merchant, for the
sum of 7001. 10s, which he had paid him on a contract that
the defendant should supply him with a cargo of Prussian
tares, in good condition and well shipped. On their arrival
here from Konigsberg, they were! found to be in bad condition,
and to have not been carefully shipped. Upon this plaintiff
brought his action in Konigsbe-g, for breach of contract, and
the Prussian Court decided against his claim, on the ground
that he had brought it too late. Plaintiff and defendant being
both residents in London, the plaintiff brought a new action,
which was tried in this Court at the sittings in London. when
a verdict was biken for the plaintiff, subject to the decision of
the Court as to how far, in the peculiar circumstances, the
Prussian judgment excluded this Court.
air. Sergeant BOMPAS accordingly Obtained a role nisi to
enter a verdict for the defendant.

Against this rule Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELL showed cause.
The Learned SERGEANT contended that the matters sub-
mitted to the Prussian tribunal were not the same causes of ac-
tion as were laid in ►he declaration • here. The judgment in
Konnigsberg related only to the manner of shipment, and ex-
elu,led altogether the consideration of the contract as to the
quality of the tares, and the condition in which they were to be
delivered. The contract was made in England, and both the par-
ties resided in England. lf, however, the judgment of the for sign
Court, to which the plaintiff had chosen to apply in the first
instance, (and which was put in upon the trial here) had re-
iated to the causes of action, upon which the plaintiff sued in
in this Court, that judgment might estuppe this actin.; ;
but it was not so, the quality and condition of the tares at the
time of delivery were wholly overlooked, and judgment was
given only on the ground of lapse of time. Further, this
action was to be considered as one for the recovery of money
paid, and for which the consideration had not been received.
Mr. Sergeant Bomeas in reply, contended that the copy of
the Prussian judgment, produced at the trial, mast be taken
as conclusive; the Court had the whole case before it, and had
decided that the plaintiff was excluded by their law from re-
covering upon any part of his contract; and in that view it
must be admitted, upon all the authorities, that a person having
appealed to a foreign tribunal, upon a matter which came
within its jurisdiction, and having had its judgment against
him, could not sue again upon the same matters in the Courts
of England.
The Coo fa were of opinion that on the face of the judgmetst
it was not sufficiently clear that it related specifically to the
same matters and shings upon which the plaintiff sued here.
It was not possible, without parole or other evidence of the pre-
vious proceedings, that the Court could receive it as applying to
and determining the issues in this action. The verdict there-
fore must be entered for the plaintiff.

BAIL COURT, April 27.
LAMBERT V. LEVER.

This was an action to obtain compensation for injury
sustained by the plaintiff from the defendant.
Mr. JONES stated the case. The plaintiff and defend-
ant were both travelling on the Dog-road, which goes
under the Eastern Counties Railway, and the plaintiff's
horse, which he had bought on the day the accident took
place, took fright under the arch of the railway, and
struck the cart of the plaintiff, which he upset. The
plaintiff's horse then ran away, and broke the traces and
received injuries. Mr. Lever after the accident said that
he would be willing to pay Mr. Lambert for any loss he
sustained, but when they came to agree, in some days
after, the plaintiff would not take less than 171. or lit,
and the defendant would not give so much.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the acci-
dent, and the loss sustained by the plaintiff.
Mr. 'ruom.ts addressed the Jury for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury found for
the plaintiff damages to the amount of 131. 7s. 104.

DISMORE V. INNIS AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages from the defendants for breaking open the plain-
tiff's desk, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty,
and that the property did, not belong to the plaintiff:
It appeared from the evidence that Mr. Lucas and
Mr. Cox, one of the defendants, were joint proprietors
of the tablet newspaper, a journal advocating Roman
Catholic principles, and published at No. 3, Brydges-
street, Covent-garden, and that the plaintiff was
engaged as publisher, at a salary of two guineas,
and was allow id at the same time to carry on a private
business of his own in disposing of newspapers and pe-
riodicals ; and that he had a desk at the office of the
Tablet, in which were contained papers and books re-
lating to his private business. Some disagreement arose
between Mr. Lucas and Mr. Cox, in the month of No-
vember, and on Mr. Cox asking to see some accounts
relative to the business of the paper, he was refused, un-
less Mr. Lucas and his solicitor were also pre-
sent. Mr. Cox then, with Mr. Innis, his attorney,
and some other persons, entered the establishment of the
Tablet by means of a ladder, at two o'clock in the morn-
ing of the 25th of February, and brake open the desk
and took away some of the papers and books which were
contained in it having the names of subscribers to the
Tablet, and the names of two persons in India, to whom
the Orthodox Journal, the Catholi; Magazine, and the
Dullin Review, were 'sent. Mr. Dismore, the plaintiff;
applied fur those books through his attorney, alleging
that he was put to great inconvenience in consequence
of not having them, to which no reply was made, and
the present action was therefore brought.
It was alleged on the part of the defendants, that Mr.
Cox, being a part proprietor and owner of the Tablet
newspaper, had every
capacity right to inspect the books, and
that he had authority to enter his own house how and
when he pleased; that the.books which lie took away be-
longing to the office and not to Mr. Dismore in his pri-
vate; and that Mr, Lucas, who had now estab-
lished another paper called the True Tablet, was in fact
.the real plaintiff in the case. • •
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury brought in
a verdict for the de:endants.
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Austin appeared for the plain-
tiff ; and Mr. Platt and Mr. Dasent, for the defendants.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT,.Aprila27.
Fourteen town bail cases, and a like number of country bail
cases were upon the list for hearing in Court this morning,
the greater part of uhich were gut through without oppo-
sition. None of them presented the slightest point of general
interest.

MAIL PACKET STATIONS.—(From a Correspon-
dent).— Great dissatisfaction appears to prevail in the mercan-
tile world on the subject of foreign correspondence through the
medium of the packets which now take on board the mails at
Falmouth. The public, however, appear. to have forgotten
that an Admiral (Sir James Gordon), an Elder Brother of the
Trinity Hattie (Captain Drew), and a Secretary of the Post-
office (Thomas Lawrence, Esq. ), were, about two years since,
directed by an Admiralty order to survey the coast, and report
the most favourable place for enbarking and landing the mails.
It was their opinion that Dartmouth was, in all respects, the
most desir4ble port ; and all the inconveniences so greatly
complained of will be removed by adopting their recommen-
dation.