Star.
London, England, 1828-11-08 00:00:00

HOWARD V. HOORN&

This was action to recover IW. the amount of a car-
rier's bill, and was tried at the last Assizes for Derby,
when the plaintiff was non-suited.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS now obtained.a rule to show
cause why the nonsuit should not he set aside, on the
ground that the Judge and Jury bad been imposed on
during the trial. A witness proved that he had paid
311. to the plaintiff, on account of the defendant; and
on this representation the Judge directed a nonsuit ; but
the fact was that this sum of 311. had been given t,) the
plaintiff as a earlier in a parcel, and was delivet ed bS
him to the defendant, who paid his servants with the
money. The witness's answer had given occasion to
the mistake that the plaintiff received money from the
defendant, whereas he only received the money from the
witness to band to the defendant.

CATS O. COLEMAN.
This was an action brought by Mr. 0. Cave, M.P.
on a Wise warranty. A verdict was k for
ta_en Om
plaintiff at the last Assizes for Hertford. with liberty
to mare to enter a nonsuit.
Mr. 13110DRICE, in conformity with this permission,
now applied to the Court to enter a nonsuit, on the
ground of a variance between the declaration and the
proof. The declaration stated that the plaintiff agreed
to buy a certain horse for a large sum of money, to wit,
for one hundred pounds. It appeared, however, in
froof that the plaintiff was to pay one hundred pounds
or the horse, and ten pounds besides if he liked the
animal. 'flak was proved on the trial by the evidence
of a Mr. Green, who was produced to prove the plain-
tiff's case.
Mr. Jubtice Bawer did not think there appeared to
be any material variance. The declaration stated that
the plaintiff covenanted to purchase a certain bone for
a large sum of money, and it was no matter whether
be consented to pay 1001. or 1051. either sum would
come under the description of a large SUB of money.—
Auk refused.
PATON IP. THI 001111IPORS Of ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL.
This was an scums tried at the last Sittings at Guild-
hall. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the house
knork.Ais No, 109, Cheapside. The defendants were,
the owners if the adjoining house. The defendants;
having oho down their bow is oast to Toboiltlitt

the plaintiff's house, which had an inclination in the,
same direction, gave way, and the plaintiff brought his
action to recover damages for the injury be had sus-
tained by the act of the defendants. The plaintiff was
portioned, one of the witnesses, who was an architect,
having proved, that if the plaintiff had propped his
house fiom the inside, it would not have fallen.
The SoLicrroa•Gaseam. now moved to litt *side the
nonsuit, on the principle that no man had a right to to
jure his neighboul by the exercise of any right, and that
the defendants were bound to have given the plaintiff
sufficient warning of their intention. Tl.e Court granted
the rule to show cause.

O 1 LPS
Mr. MUNROE stayed, that this was an action tried
before Mr. Justice Holioyd,. at the last Assizes for
Buckinghamshire. The plaintiff was a breeder and dog
fancier, and the defendant a farmer. The plaintiff pur-
chased from the defendant 100 pheasants, and arranged
that the defendant should retain possession cf the birds
until the plaintiff sent for them, and in the mean while I
the defendant was to receive 2d. a week for the supportl
of each of the birds. The plaintiff sent for 50 of the
birds in a month after, and they were delivered to him ;
but he did not send for the remainder for three months,
and the value of pheasants having been greatly err
hanced in the interval, the defendant refused to deliver
them, and the plaintiff brought an action of-trover.—
He was nonsuited, however, the Judge being of opinion
that the case came under the Act which rendered the
purcha-e of game illegal. The Learned Counsel now
applied so set aside the nonsuit, on the ground th,t the
pheasants were not game, as they had been reared by
the defendant in a pro.
Mr. Justice BAILEY asked whether there was any
proof that the pheasants were so reared ?
Mr. Muzaor rep) ed in the negative.
Lord Tezvransra —For aught we know, the eggs
might have been taken in the woods, and the defendant
have got his own hens to sit on them.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
LITTLZ V WAIT AND ANOTHLIL

Mr. Sergea' t Bustrus said, that in this case he was
inst, ucted to move for a Rule to set aside an ezecutiou
issued upon a warrant of attorney, and to show cause
why Mr. R: illy, the attorney for the plaintiff, should
not pay the costs of the present application. The
following were the circumstances of the case. The
defendants were bail for a person named Abraham
Ilyer, and were eventually filed with the debt and
costs to the amount of 951. Upwards of 351. were paid
towards the liquidation of this sum, and the plaintiff'
.greed to take the remainder by instalments. Other
small sums were repaid, and eventually the plaintiff
agreed to take from Morgan la. in satisfaction of o.e
remainder of the debt. The attorney, hearing of the
compromise. entered up judgment upon t',e .varrant of
attorney, which had been given as security for the in-
stalments, under a plea that there were costs due to him
in 0 e cause; this, however, he was instructed to sty,
was not the ca•e, for the plaintiff lad repeatedly called
to know it any were due, and if so, to pay them, but
understood that there were none. Having entered up
judgment, he then levied an execution on the goods of
Morgan. Under these circumstinces, the• defendants
had no other resource but to come to that Court for
edress. .
LORD CHM' Justice—Take a rule to show cause.
PREROGATIVE COURT, Nos. 11. • .
MR. FARQUHAR'S WILLCOLVIN U. lIIRAZIIR.

The Proctor for one of the parties in this case, which
is a suit respecting the property of the late John Far.
quhar,,Xsq. of Foothill, produced in Court a sealed
packet, which be bad received from a Mr. Patrick Glass,
of St. Andrew's, Scotland, supposed to contain some
testamentary papers of the deceased, which would ma-
terially affect the state of the question before the Court.
The packet had been placed in Mr. Glass's custody by
the deceased, but forgotten by him till recently. The
Proctor prayed that it might be opened.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL directed the packet to be opened
by the Registrar.
The anxiety of all was intense whilst the seals were
breaking. On removing the envelope, the first thing
' which appeared was an affidavit from Mr. Glass. dated
in October last, setting forth that in the year 1814 he
came to this country with Mr. Farquhar from India ;
that Mr. Farquhar at that time, or soon after, informed
the deponent that there would be a packet forwarded
to him (the deponent) for him (the deceased) which he
desired deponent to Itisp; that the deponent accord.
ingly did receive such a packet, which was the same
now sent to this Court, accompanied by the affidavit—
that it was sealed and secured with red tape as it now
appeared, and had remained in the deponent's custody
unopened, &c. . _

The Jtinea directed the seals and tape to be removed.
and the p pers to be eaaniiiied.
Renewed anxiety appealed in the face of the by-
standers. Upon breaking the seals, the papers proved
to be two accounts relating to the rental of an estate at
Ba!gone'', which Mr. Farquhar had been in treaty for,
and two private le tens directed to a Mr. Lindsay.
The delivery of this mouse, which has been the sub-
ject of divers speculations, occasioned some mirth.