The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-03 00:00:00

1,01 CALLS MADE BY • LIIACIDATOIL

This case was tried in London before Mr. Justine Bytes,
when a verdict was entered for the plaintiffs, subject to the
opinion of the court.
Mr. Archibald now moved to enter a verdict for the de-
fendant, and stated the following circumstances. The de-
fendant held in the plaintiff.' company twenty 10/. shares,
upon which 21. 10a. each bad been paid ; but he became
bankrupt, and the affairs of the company were also put in
process of being wound up. The company's liquidator made
a call upon the shares after the defendant was adjudicated •
bankrupt, but before be had obtained his discharge, and
the present action was to recover the amount of this call,
in respect of the defendant'. shares. The defeadant con-
tended that the call was a "contingent liability," from
which be was discharged by the bankruptcy law, and that
therefore be was not liable in this action.
Rule granted.
HOGG r. 15CrEN AND ANOTRIOL-sINGVLAR DEFINCE.

Mr. Charles Pollock said that the defendants, Mews.
Skeen sad Vinceut, had been partners, and they were sued
• this actiost sa acceptors of a bill of exchange. Vincent
suffered judgment by default, but Skeen pleaded that he
dad not swept the bill. The trial came oo ►1 Guildhall be.
fere Mr. Justice Willes, when it was proved for the plain-
tiff that Skeen bad accepted the bill in the partnership
name. For the detente Skeen himself was called. and
whilst admiMieg that be wrote the acceptance, he produced
ha partnership deed to show that he bad no authority to do
no. No evidence was given that the plaintiff had any notice
of these facts., or th►t he had not given value for the bill,
►off, indeed, the plaintiffs' attorney proved distinctly that
value bad bees gives. It was also stated that Skeen had
suffered from the tuiscomlnet of his partner, and the jury,
commiserating with bum, gave him the verdict. The pre-
sent motion wee for • rule to eater a verdict for the
plaintiff, or, ►t all *mom, for • new trial, upon the ground
that the verdict waa against the evidence.
The Lord Mier Justice said that it was a singular defence
fee Skean to say that in samptieg the bill he bad acted con.
Mary to his agreement with his partner, and therefore
ought to be relieved from liability ; whilst at the same time
lie calmer wade uo objection, but suffered judgment.
Rule granted.
CAPRI. r. POWELL AND WIYI.—HUSBAICII.II LIABILITY.

This wee wa action to recover damages for false imprison-
ment, and at the trial before Mr. B+roo Martin, at Guild-
ford, the damages were wowed at 501., but a verdict was
entered for the defendants. subject to the opinion of the
court.

Mr. Daly now moved for a rule to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for the all. non obstacle voredicte. The circum-
stances were these :—T plaintiff was given into custody by
the female defendant whilst she was the wife of Slr. Powell,
but before the action wescommeoced Mr. Powell hadobtained
a divorce a "incubi. The question was whether this divorce
barred the plainturs right of action against Mr. Powell.
Rule granted.

APPLICATION TO STRIKE AN ATTORNEY OFF THR ROLL&
Some time ego a rule was obtained calling upon Henry
M. Sparkham. an attorney, to show canoe why he should
not be struck off the rolls of this court, and to-day cause was
shown agsiost it being made absolute.

Mr. M. Lloyd and Mr. Butler Rigby appeared to show
cause ; and Mr. Kaye to support the rule.
The feet. were very complicated, but it appeared that
Mr. Lockingtoo employed Mr. Sparkbam to sue for 651. 25.,
and that Mr. Sparkhani hiving received bills for • portion
of this aum.drscounted those bills with hie hankers, and the
proceeds were carried into his own account. It was .lao
said that Mr. Sparkham bad not told the exact tenth as to
the amount which be bad received. After a severe illness
Mr. Sparklum became baukrupt, when, upon the bole op-
position of Mr. Lockiegtou, the certificate was auspeoded
for nine month., six mouths without protection. The Law
Society saw an sceount of the matter in a newspaper,
and thereupon they applied for Ibis rule.

The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that
the rule called upon Mr. Sparkbam to show cause why be
should not be struck off the rolls fur misconduct in his
capacity of au attorney ; and the rule was moved for by the
Law Society. who Lad only such an interest aa the
court itself had in the matter, that of maintaining the
respectability and honesty of the profession. The
faora created • case of grave suspicion. The
attorney was employed to receive • debt on behalf of his
client, arid be appeared to have received bills of exchange
and afterwards to have received the produce of those bills,
and paid it into his own account at his banker'',
blending the money of the client with his own moneys ;
and ultimately, when the money was required at his hands,
he was a bankrupt, and the client got nothing at all. He
repeated that it was a case of grave suspicion. The fact of
the attorney paying thefenouey into his bankers' thus
blending it with his own money would approximate to •
specific misappropriation of the money, were it not that the
client was in effect informed that the attorney bad the
money, and would retain it until he got the residue, and
that, not demanding it, he muat be taken to have assented
to its being held by the bankers of the attorney in the mean.
time. Therefore he (the Lord Chief Justice) could not say that
there was any misappropriation of money given to the attorney
for • specific purpose. Another ground of the rule was
that, having received the money of the client, the attorney
concealed the fact of that receipt, and endeavoured to pre.
vent the client enforcing his right by • (else answer, and the
tales answer specified visa that when he had received 311.
out of W., he mid that he had received all but 311. Han
attorney received money, and by falsehood eadeaveured to