Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-11-09T00:00:00

alr. OergeaRt rEAIEE wovee tne C;ourt Eo set asitle the nonsui which, in this case, Air. Justice Littledale had directed at the S5_ lop assizes. The question was, whether the plaintiffs could recover from the defendar.t the amrunt of a bill of exchange, drawn by Mtis' Vaughan 3ed accepted by the defendant, wvhjecht he plain- tifs nowv held, and claimed as a security i thern for bail given by themn for a debt against Milss Vxughan, who died some timne since. The learned Juldge had held that the plaintiFs could not recover up- on this bill of 2001. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE WaS of opirion that the plaintiffi could not recover, because they had not proved that they had got pos- vession of the bill before it fell due.-Rule refused. PnlICE V. BULLEir. MUr. GURNEY moved to set iasside the verdict for the defendant, and to have a new trial g.ranted. The case had been tried at Guild- hall before the Lord Chief Justice. The plaintiff vwas a baker at Soutbend, and the defendant had been his attorney in an action for rent, in which he had been the defendant. His defence waa a plea of minority, ef which there was not evidence prepared on the day of trial. For negligence in providing the neecisary witnesses.an action was brought against the attorney, Mr.Bullen, in which ir. Pearse, the attorTey for the plaintiffis the action against the present plaini tiflf was the attorney. The LoRD CHIEF Jus-icE said he remembered the circurn- srauces. It appeared doubtful whether, if the witnesses hatd been ready, the restilt would have been different. It was also doubted whether this latter action was not the attorney's, and not Price's. There was again some question whether the absence of Price's fa- ther to prove the minority was not the father's own fault. At the trial it had been stated that Southend could neither support two bakers nor two attorneys. The LORD CiTEF JUSTICE had no doubt that it was the action of the attorncy.-_tule refusecL 7<AYXARZ) V. RMODr:S. This case had been tried here, and a verdict found for the defen- dants. Colonel Lyon had insured his life at the Pelican Insurance- office for a sum of money advanced bv the plaintiff. Afr. SCARLETT said he did not mean to call upon the Court to disturb the firding of the jury that Colonel Lyon's was not an in- surable life but the plaintiff and the defendants were equally unac- quainted with that fact. Hie meant, therefore, to urge, s a point of law, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, though Colone Lyoa could not recover. MIr. Justice BAYLEY.-Tt was a conditioa contained in the policy that the life was an insurable life? AIfr. SCARLETT.-Yes, I cannot disguise that fact. Mlr. Justice BAYLEY.-Then dearly the plaintiff cannot recr upon that policy. Mlr. ScARLETT..-f thazt be the opinion of all the Court, I have nothing further to spy. The Court unanbuously concurred. EYRE V. BALLETT. Mr. CL.ARtKE obtained a rule to show cause why the vezdict for the derendant should not be set aside and a nevw trial gratied. Thc case had been tried st Nottigham, and tfie cliefargument was that tbe member for the town, Mtr. Denman, conducted the defence, that the Recorder was also of counsel for the defendant. and that the. U7Jler Sherifflwas attorney. Ur. Justice HOLROYD said he thought the verdict wrong. Rule granted. VAXDERNEWLEN V. VAN`MZRIWr6LEt(. Alr. Sergeant FIRTzi obtained a rule to show cause wbv the ver- dict for the defend;knt shlould not be set aside, and a new triul grant- ed. The action was brought by the sister against ber brother, for the extra expenses of burying their father at St. Alban's, where he hed been alderm-lan, instead of burying him where he had died, in Cambridgeshire. The sister was executrix, but the brother had inm slsted that his father should not be buried like a dog in Crambri*e- shire, but as became an aidennan ef St. Abans. The verlict was found for thec defendant-Rule granted, TISE tINOG VY DtJDPIELD. Mvir. AsDrnaws moved fer a writ of habeas coLeg to bring upa prisoner of the name of eudfield, in the countygatil of Surrey. ?e had bean imprisoned upon a vrmrnt from Sir P,. Birnie, for utering in Surrey notes which had bean robbed on the occasion aludrd to. Assizes and Sessions had p=sed over sirnce the imprisoiment, =nd -the oath on which the warrant was ksued wae that of Jacabs, who was himself sworn to liav been a principal in the robbery- On these drcumstanees6 he submitted that the prisoner iva entitledi to be bsilu[. The Loan Cmirt JUSTICEC..-You had better tce a rule to show cause. LAIDLAW V. ELLIOT. 3f7.BR0ouG:RtX inoved for a rule to-show causwhy the verdict for the plaintil shoulN not be set aside, and a uonsuit entered. It I. wasa actiori& rcoier 2001. frae the defredant, an attorney, ont the ground:af s:ioss tothat -mount sustaiaed by thephiintiff.trugh thengiigenceeftheasto4rey. The learsed gotlaman ioate"e at len'gb, xhat, zsdmiittig the nllegedtr.istake, it wea-pon a point so obscure and Xdoubetfl, thtthe-sdefendaateould not justiybe held Liable as having acted withor -due skill or due d3gesice. He als& asovgd on thegrouand &cesive damsges.-Rale gateda. CArTRTOFTZITJGl-qRV,W(lT4 ?z-- n REV. 51Nr LLOYD V. nAVTF.-