The Express.
London, England, 1852-04-20 00:00:00

tom *gully liable—sad would it not be errosoove to say
that the law would hot imply a contract that all should
contribute towards the expemes which all had sanctioned?
He mast bold that this gentleman was liable to contribute.
ad t►at oho Master bad coma to a right conclusion. His
Honour pee the costs to the °WILL manager.
COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.,--YlinTiltDAY.
amnesia is Bascp.—Havoia Lam CauraFts. lia,Jomes Wawa-

was. Ma. Seams Sass, sun Ma. Jerrie, Oacnirron.
TIMMONS AND WM. S. GIBBONS
Mr. Keating applied for a rule to set aside the verdict in
this case, which had been given fur defendant, ani claim-
ing' a verdict for 661. for the plaintiffs. The case bad been
tried before Mr. Justice Wightman, at the last asalsee for
the county of Stafford. Defendant was an Aker of the
Stourbridge Banking Company. It appeared that, before
her marriage, the female plaintiff wan possessed of RV.,
SBol.of which she put into the Birmingham Banking Com-
pany. Of this sum, 661 was in the notes of the Stourbridge
Beni. For this money she was to receive 3 per cent., and
to give 14 days' notice of its removal. The day after she
paid the 63t. into the Birmingham 113nk that of Stourbridge
stopped payment, and the only question was, upon whom
was the lees to fall. The learned counsel submitted that,
when bank notes were received es cash, there was no war-
ranty of the solvency of the maker of the notes, and the
party who received them was the party liable. Ile quoted
"Byles on Bills " and other authorities in support of his
view that the liability fell upon the transferee.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YEntaDAT.
Ilirrmei is BANCO:BlITOIR Camp James 31,6%14 M. James
ausentau., Va. Jcorica WiLuars, mgn SR. !Imes Tia.roulus.

OIaSZWOOD V. BLANZeI-TIDIR BARGAINS.

uorri
This was an action to recover the sum of I, . Os. the
amount of the "differences" in a transaction in railway
shams, and at the trial before the Chief Justice at the last
sittings in London a verdict was found fur the ili (cadent.
The ewe involved a question of considerable importance,
and at the conclusion of the trial the counsel for the plain-
tiff said that the verdict would create " very great conster-
nation upon the Stock Exchange," as itwonld affect a great
number of transactions in stock and railway shares.
Mr. Serjeant Bytes, on behalf of the plaintiff, now moved
for a new trial upon the ground of misdirection, and that
the verdict was against the evidence. The learned serjeant
stated that the plaintiff was a stock jobber in an extensive
way of business and the defendant was Colonel Blanc. The
case involved the very important point whether an agree-
ment for the purchase and sale of railway shares, which
was in the nature of a time bargain, was or was not a
gambling transaction within the meaning of the recent act
of parliament ?
Mr. Jussice Cresawell—That was a bargain not fur sale
and purchase, but for differences.
Mr. Serjeant 'Wes said the declaration stated that cer-
tain shares were told—vie., 10 Great Westerns, 100 North
Staffordshires, 100 Brighton', and 240 Boyers at a certain
price named. This contract was dated the 30th August,
and the shares were to be delivered on the 13th September
to the plaintiff. It was then alleged that the defendant
was no: at the time of the bargain and sale possessed of the
shares or any of them, and that to deliver them to the
plaintiff on the 13th September he must have purchased
or otherwise acquired such shares. The price in the mean-
time had risen, and the plaintiff could not acquire
the shares except by paying the increased price, and
it was, therefore, agreed latween the parties that the
defendant should not be called upon to deliver the shares,
but should pay the plaintiff the difference between the price
at the date of the contract and at the date when they were
to be delivered, namely, 1,007 f. 10s., within a reasonable
time. The declaration then alleged mutual promises, and
stated that the defendant had not paid the amount of the
differences to the plaintiff. To this declaration there were
several pleas, but the important one was that the alleged
contract of bargain and sale was a contract and agreement
by way of wagering on the prices of shares ; and that the
said contract was merely colourable, and a shift and con-
trivance to conceal the wagering aforesaid ; and that it
never was intended that the shares should bo bought, sold
delivered, and paid for, but the transaction should be •
mere wager as to prices at a future time, contrary to the
statute.
The Chief Justice said he had left that plea in its terms
to the jury, and therefore the motion must be for judgment
non obstante verediete.
_ _

Mr. Sorjeant Byles would so shape his motion. The
plea was entirely framed upon the statute 8 & 9 Victoria,
chap. 109, see. 18, which enacted that " all contracts or
agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of
gaming or wagering, shall be null and void ;" and there-
fore the only question was, whether tbia contract was made
by way of gaming or wagering. Their lordships were
probably aware that persons carrying on the business of
stockjobbers were in a very important position, and that,
indeed, the business connected with the public securities
could not be conducted without them. If a person wanted
to buy or sell 10,0001. worth of stock, he went to a jobber
and told him he had a " transaction " to that amount, and
asked him the price of the day, without telling him whethcr
be wished to buy or to sell. The jobber then, not knowing
the nature of the " transaction," gave the price truly, and
thus business went on. There could be no doubt that Col.
Blanc wa.s • person who was desirous of speculatingi n
shares, but there was no proof that Mr. Orisewood knew
what his intentions were.

The Chief Justice—The " transaction" u to the Brigh•
ton shares had been going on for a twelvemonth ; and as to
the other sham, it appeared that they had been "con-
tinued."

lllr ikvjeant Byles—His lordship left it to the jury to
say whether this was a mere time bargain, and he could
set say that there was not plenty of evidence that this was
so; but the difference between Colonel Blane and the
stock jobber was this, that the jobber might not know the
nature of the transaction, nor even whether all the orders
were for the same principal. His lordship at the trial
thought that that made no difference, if the transaction was
in the way of Mr. Orisewood's business.
The Chief Justice—Nor could it if it was gambling. Ho
thought he had put that matter to the jury.
Mr. Berjeant Bylea said this wu not to be called a
gaming transaction, simply because it referred to shun, for
It would have been just the same if it referrel to wheat or
cotton, and it was quite clear that a man might contract to
sell property which he did not possess, and which he did not
intend to pores., without it being a gambling transaction.
It wu not enough that the seller did not intend to sell nor
the buyer to buy, but it must be part of the contract that
the goods should not be delivered on one hand nor received
on the other. Again, if the seller really intended to
sell, and the buyer never to buy the goods, yet if neither
knew of tho intention of the other that also would not be a
gambling transaction.
Mr. Justice Cremwell—lt would be that they made a
contract intending to break it.
Mr. Serjt. Byles—But each would have power to enforce
the contract against the other.
The Chief Justice—But you must combine this fact with
your suppositious cam, that the long practice had been to
make such bargains.
Mr. Justice Creeswell—lt would come to this, that each
intended to give the other power to enforce against him a
contract of sale.

The Chief Justice—Was not the test this, would not the
bargain be satisfied by paying the differences?
Mr. fierjeant Bytes thought not ; and he submitted that
the matter had not been properly placed before the jury.
Mr. Justice Creswell.—What the Chief Justice said to
the jury was this : " If neither intended to buy or sell, it
is gambling." Now, If one did not intend to buy, and the
other did not intend to all, what, in the name of fortune,
did they intend ?
Mr. Serpent Byles.—lt was intended that each should
hold the other responsible, and indeed his client would be
bound to supply the shares. If a man said, " I will sell
you a hundred quarters of wheat," which he had not got,
and never meant to have, he scold not intend to sell it.
Mr. Justice Creeswell.—Then he never intended to bind
himself to have it ?

Mi.Se;j;;Mi B7ln submitted that he would bind himself
have it.

-11;. Indite Cresswell.—Then he would intend to make a
oentrect which he did not intend to fulfil.
dr. Bedard Bylee urged upon the wart that this gui-
don ww a very important one, and he reared their lord-
ships that the rank of the trial at Guildhall had created
great goostassationsu the Stock Etchings.
The ChlefJustiee—Thda it was high tine that the matter
&mid be better underdog& They, of atone, knew that
thew traumatism took piss may day, but it was only
woe.
benaggeggithe mand not sr wonhl sot see what the law
sad ma wiewsbag to It.
Mr. derjessat Pliers—But his died had a right to have
the point prit bet to the jury, geoudiag to law, even
although ham•Wea woo not a one, for the more
guilty a man was the maim had at law. What
wee left to the jury wag, what was Osisswears intention
mad what was Blane's intention. hot that dig not include
the one, knowledge of the other's ids/atm. The direction
should have been wu it the iaisatisa ad both that
this should he a time bemain," and "was the btraYea of
one known and understood by the other 1"
The Chief Justice said he could understand the prepo-
sition by applying his mind to it, but it was as eeroeoieely
refined one. _ _

Mr. 11;tst Dyke matinee& o urge upon the court
that the Swam bad mit left the matter to the jury in
a rilidltakey carer, sad that the verdict wee not war-
e= the mikes% mad be tnutted that if the court en-
emy denbt wpm the matter • rule would be
greriae that the suldeet might be fully discussed.
luatiee Creswell said lie was of opinion that the
1 owelion of his lordship was perfectly right. As to the
as emblem, although it was emit that the order to sell might
en asionme. as ihr me an of sevend par-
ties. amL that the order did net intimate the real notate of
the trameetisa, yet there wee &blandest matter to show
to the jury what was the real nature of the Summation in
thin man The Brighton shares, for instance, had been a
lon time In course of dealing ; and as to the other shares,
there bad been prudes' dealings, for they were "con-
tied"nu en the 80th Annan. At the settling day it was
said that IA/9. was le be paid, and there was no complaint
at all about that ; and under all the circumstances the jury
were qili=nin finding as they did, that it wan a pm-
Thebli Chief Justice said he had some knowledge of these
transactions, and he was sorry that they existed to such
an extent. lie was happy to say that, to hie mind, not the
least injustice had been done in this ease. lie wee sorry, how-
ever, to hear that the matter was viewed with alarm in the
City, foe rack • decision ought to be looked to with wt -
is~Ya It a Ivey bed practice that persons really not
masseeted with the BM* I/change should go there for they
purpose of gambling is shares as this defendant had done ;
it was a lantentable thing, 'and the sooner it was brought to
ea end the better.
The saber judges concurred, and the rule was, therefore,
refused.
Bale refused.