The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-09 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Justice Wightmaa.

BATTY V. THOMPSON.— HOHIBITION TO • JUDOS OE
A COUNTY COUILT, TO YNFYZNT HIS TRYING • CAIII
wHENE A QUESTION or TITLE IS INVOLVEU.—The Attor-
ney General moved, on behalf of Mr. Alderman Thompson,
for a rale to show cause why a prohibition should not issue
directed to Mr. Ingham, the judge of the county court of
Westmoreland, sitting at Kirkby Lonsdisle, prohibiting him
from any further proceedings in an action brought by a Mr.
Batty against Mr. Thompson. It appeared that Mr. Thomp-
son received a summons on the 15th May, to appear to
answer a plaint at the suit of Batty, in the county court,
on the 2nd June, for the recovery of 41. for the
use and occupation of a field. In December, 1840,
Mr. Thompson had contracted to purchase an estate
in Westmoreland from a Mr. Newell for 120,0001.,
which purchase win completed in 1841, and he entered into
ion. In the estate was a quarter of an acre for which
posses ion.
rent. It was included in a pasture field, the
whole of which was undiatingul+hed by metes and bounds,
and consisted of nine acres. Until a short time before this
action was brought Mr. Thompson had never heard of any
claim to this piece of land, and when it was made he told
the claimant that he had purchased the whole estate ; and if
there was any question of right to that piece of land an Sc.
Lion of ejectment might be brought. This suit, however,
war instituted, and Mr. Thompson appeared by his solicitor,
who contended that the matter is dispute Was • question of
title, which the judge of a county court bad not power to try.
Mr. Ingham thought be had power, and gave judgment fur
the plaintiff, but stayed the proceedings till an application
was made to this court —The Attorney General contended
that it was clear that this was a question of title, which, by
the 58th motion of 9 & 10 Vic., c. 95, judgcs of county courts
were expressly forbidden to try.—Rule granted.
The Court then sat at nisi prius, and disposed of the list
for the second sitting, there ”nly undefended causes.

COURT 01. t.a.vmAioN PLEAS.
Bitting is Elmo.

BENHAM O. GRAY.—QURS TION AB TO THI RIGHT OF
PARTY TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION or TRESPASS AGAINST
A SUPPOSED PARTNRR.—This Irma an action of trespass,
and the ease was tried before Mr. Justice lt‘ illiams at the
last sittings in Middle ex, when a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff.—Mr. Petersdorff now moved for a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set asi le, or a nonsuit
entered. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff was
possessed of a house the upper part of which h. had let to
the defendant; and it also appeared that the plaintiff and
defendant agreed together to carry on business as appraisers
and auctioneers in the loser part of the house, hut there was
no express understanding as to the manner in which the
partnership was to be conducted. After the lapse of a
short time the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he
had dissolved the partnership. Subsequently, the defendant
sought to enter the premises where the business was con-
ducted, and claimed a right to de so. This the plaintiff re-
sisted, and thereupon the defendant broke open the door,
and thus committed the trespass complained of. The slues.
tion therefore was, whether or not, under the circumstances

mentioned, the pl•intiff, by giving the notice of dissolution,
had completely put an end to the defendant's interest in that
part of the premises where the business was carried on—it
being contended on behalf of the eefendent that he had a
right to exercise the privileges of • partner until the &Mars
had been properly arranged.—The Court said the rule
had been moved upon the general ground that the partner.
ship gave the defendant a right to use the premises so long
as anything remained to be adjusted between him and the
plaintiff. It did not appear, however, that there had
ever been anything more than a mere negotiation for the
putnership, the plaintiff having merely permitted the de.
(indent to use the premises for such joint dealings as they
might have together. The subsequent notice of diwolution
had entirely determined the defendant's interest in the con.
cern, and the possession became vested in the plaintiff as the
owner. He had therefore a right to maintain his action •
trespass, and the present rule must be refused.—Rule
refused.
. . . . _ . .

The court baa given notice that the days appointed for the
bearing of appeals front the decisions of revising barristers,
wader the art 6 Vie., C. 18, are Timidity, the 11th, Mon-
day, the 15th, and Thursday, the 18th inst.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Ban,:

POTAZ V. GLOADOP.—ALLEGED FRAUDS IN BILL DIA-
COVNTIVIO.—This was an action by the endoreee of two bills
of exchange for 2.501. Poch, drawn by one Gardiner and ac-
cepted by the defendant, a clergyman, of West Dean, in
Wiltshire. At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, during
the sittings after last Trinity term, it was contended that no
consideration passed to the defendant, end that the bills had
been obtained by fraud and coven. It appeared Gardiner
obtained the bills front the defendant for the purpose of
having them discounted, and having failed to do so at a
bank where it was alleged be had previously bad an account,
he gave them to one Thomas Holbrook Coyne, who took
them to a person named Oadderer, and obtained through
him 1001. for them from the plaintiff. The de fen-
dont never got a farthing for the bills which were
subsequently passed, without the plaintiff's endorse-
ment, to well known bill-..iscounters named Jones and
Lawrence Levi, who, upon their being dishonoured,
obtained from Oadderer the amount which they had
advanced, and returned them. These facts having been
proved, it was proposed to give in evidence certain letters
from Oadderer to the defendant and Mr. Glossop, with a
view to show the conditions upon which Gardiner obtained
the bills; and that Oadderer, as the plaintiff's agent, must
have been aware of the fraud perpetrated noon the defend-
ant. The learned judge refused to admit that correspond•
ence ; and a verdict having passed wider his lordship's
direction for the plaintiff fur 1001., Mr. Cockburn, Q.C.,
moved yesterday for a rule to show cause why that verdict
should not be set aside and a new trial had upon the ground
of misdirection and the improper rejection of evidence.—
The Lord Chief Baron raid that as Gardiner, who was called
by the defendant at the trial, swore he had received 1001.
fcr the bills, while they were in his hands, as agent for
the Rev. Mr. O!oesop, it appeared to him (the learned
judge) that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover that
sum ; however, he thought since then that the jury were at
liberty to believe as much of Gardiner's evidence as they
thought proper. The learned counsel had better take a
rule to show cause.—Mr. Cockburn: We were going to
prove that Miss Potez, the plaintiff, and Osdderer, her
agent in this transaction, were upon very intimate terms,
but his lordship would not allow us.—The court intimated
again that sufficient grounds had transpired to warrant the
granting of the application.—Mr. Cockburn said there was
another point he wished to mention. After the
jury had retired for some time, and considered
their verdict, they returned into court, and declared
it was their opinion that the whole transaction was
a fraud upon the defendant. The learned judge told
them they were bound to determine the case according
to the evidence, which showed that the plaintiff had paid
1001. for the bills. The jury then unanimously declared!
it was their opinion that the bills were never in the plaintiff's
hands.—Mr. Baron Rolfe: Was not that a finding for the
defendant ?—Mr. Baron Parke : Certainly. There was the
case of " Jacoby. Tarltton," which decided that such a decla-
ration amounted to av, rdict.—Mr. Cockburn said he had a
host of authorities to show that such an intimation from a
jury was in effect a verdict for the defendant.—Mr. Baron
Alderson asked why was not that point reserved ?—Mr.
Cockburn : His lordship refused to reserve it, and desired
us to tender a bill of exceptions if we were not satisfied.—A
rule nisi was granted.
AVOVATIN V. CH•LLIS.—NEOLIGAIICE OF A SHERIFF.—
This was an action against the Sheriff of Middlesex for neg-
ligence, for having *Mewed goods seined by him under an
execution to be taken away by the debtor's landlord, who, it
appeared, put in a claim for rent, which was not proved to
have been due. Mr. Baron Platt, before whom the case was
tried a few days ago, told the jury that unless the landlord's
claim was proved regularly, the sheriff should not have al-
lowed the goods he had seised to be taken away, and that as
he had done so he was guilty of negligence. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for 181., the value of the
goods removed.—Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., moved for a rule to
set aside that verdict, on the ground of misdirection; but
the court were of opinion that the ruling of Mr. Baron Platt
was perfectly right, and refused the motion.