Star.
London, England, 1829-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dm 4.

LITT V. nom
This action was nominally against the late Sheriff of Surrey tot
a false return (walla bone to a writ of furifacils.) It was in reality
the suit of one Sheriff's officer against another, for alledged negli-
gence in not seizing twenty pockets of hops deposited fur sale in the
warehouse of Mr. Childern, In Half-moon-yard, Southwark.
It appeared that a Kentish farmer, named Colgate, residing at
Cheveley, had sent the hops to Childern for sale. He soon after
agreed with Young, a hep-merchant, that for and in consideration
of the advance of £lOO the hops should be sold at a certain price
for the purpose of paying the money so advanced. Young, who
has since become a bankrupt, did not give .2100 in cash, but ►anded
over a bill of exchange to that amount, which was dishonoured.—
Young, who was the debtor of Levy, the Sheriff's officer, confessed
a judgment, and gave possession of the hops to Levy. The de-
fendant proceeded to seise the hops as the property of Young, but
could not succeed in that object.
Mr. CAMPBELL, as Counsel for the defendant, rested his defence
on two grounds :—lst. It was said the hops did not belong to
Young ; and 2dly It was found impossible, without a breach of
law, to seize them, locked up as they were in a warehouse which
the defendant could not break open.
The above propositions having been established by evidence, •
Mr. Justice J. Naze held that the action could not be sus-
tained, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.

CONWAY V. LAY.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of All, which
bad been lent to the defendant. The defence was that the original
acknowledgment for the money had been given by the plaintiff to
a third person, and a pies of set-off as to XS was also put upon the
record. The receipt for was put In.
Witnesses were called, and an I 0 U was tendered as evidence,
but was rejected, not being stamped.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £9.
WAY Y. SIMNIONS AND AMITE'S.
This was an action of troves., brought to recover certain goods
which had been obtained from the plaintiff by fraud,and seized under
a commission of bankrupt issued against a person named Douglas,
the late partner of Simmons. It appeared that a Mr. Butcher
called at the plaintiff's warehouse, in Cateaton-street, and said that
imowanted to open an account with him for the supply of goods to
Ile shipped abroad. He also said that he applied in behalf of
Messrs. Simmons, Douglas, and Co. who would pay for the goods
in bills. Plaintiff made inquiries as to the respectability of this
firm, and then furnished the goods. Some time elapsed, when the
plaintiff was told that the bills which bad been given in payment for
the goods bad been fraudulently drawn by Butcher and Douglas,
and that they had been ante-dated after Douglas had dissolved
partnership with Simmons. A commission of bankruptcy was
issued against Douglas and Simmons ; the defendant was chosen
sole assignee • the goods were then on the point of being shipped,
and the defendant seized them for the benefit of Dorglas's cre-
ditors. A misunderstanding, however, bad arisen between the
plaintiff and defendants, and the former was obliged to bring his
action against the defendant, his Attoritey, and the messenger to the
Commission.
After the case bad proceeded some length, a verdict was con-
sented to foe the amount claimed against Simmons and his attorney,
as a security for the re-delivery of the plaintiff's goods; but a
verdict was entered for the messenger.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, Nov. 28.
TUE EMIL OT xmonow T. JOS/Mi WILMS IL4CDOMPILL.
Mr. blacdonnell, who had been out .n his own recognizance,
since the affidavits in extenuation were put in and submitted to the
Court, came up on Saturday to receive judgment. He sat in the
side bar.
Mr. Justice Jw recapitulated the principal passages of the libel-
lous articles which were published at the defendant's desire against
the• Noble Prosecutor, and sentenced Mr. blacdonnell to pay a fine
of X5O, and to be imprisoned for six months in Kilmainham.
Mr. Macdonnell then retired with the Sub•Sberllf of the City,
and proceeded, accompanied by that patriotic young Baronet, Sir
Richard O'Donel, to Kilinainham. We understand, from indis-
putable authority, that Lurd Kingston intends immediately to
apply to Government, to have Mr. blacdonnell released at once
from incarceration, and that the Noble Earl means also to forgive
the pecuniary penalty.—Dublin Evening Post.