The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-09 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.

Before the Lord Chancellor.
His lordship took his seat in his court, in Lincoln's-inn, at
11 o'clock, and gave judgments in thy following cases, which
were argued before the long vacation in 1647 :
STOCREN V. DOWSON.—FARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTS.—Tbis
war an appeal from an order of the Master of the Rolls, upon
exceptions to parts of the mattes report, under the decree
in the cause. —The Lord Chancellor read his
judgment, stating at great length the circumstances of the
portnership and the proceedings in the cause, and his lord•
ship affirmed the order of the Master of the Rob and dis-
missed the defendant's appeal with costa.
Ex PARTE BASIL IN RE SIR G. STEPHEN AND OTHERS,
SOLICITORIL—RAILWAY SPECCLATIONS.—TAXATION OF
SOLICITORS' BILL OP COST'.—J IRIBDICTION.—This was an
appeal from an order of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce,
made upon a petition presented by Mr. George Bass, a
brewer in Burton.upon-Trent, and once acting director of
a railway company called "the London and Manchester
Direct Independent Railway Company," praying for an
order to refer for taxation the bill of costs of Sir George
Stephen and partners, the solicitors to that company, which
is now defunct. The petition stated the formation of the
said company in April, 1845, under the designs of Mr. Rem-
ington, engineer, in conjunction with another design called
" Itaatrick's line," Mr. Bass was a shareholder and mem-
ber of the provisional committee, and was afterwards chosen
a member of the managing and acting committee. Sir
George Stephen and partners were the solicitors of the com-
pany, and had the possession and use of the plane, levels,
and various other documents relating to the railway. Some
differences having arisen between the pectin in November,
1815 Sir G. Stephen and partners proposed to give up all
the documents relating to the company in their custody, and
to withdraw front the office of solicitors of the company,
upon condition of receiving the full amount of their hills of
costs, estimated by them at the sum of 28,0001. The commit-
tee, or the majority of them, agreed, aftersome discussion, to
accede to thi• proposal, and accordingly five of them signed
cheques for 28,0001., of which a sum of 13,0001. was given
to Stephen and his partner, Hutchinson, and 10,0001. was
divided between two other solicitors on he line. Bass and
others of the committee protested against these payments.
The petition, after stating those and other matters, alleged
that Sir G. Stephen and partners never delivered any bills of
costs, though often requested to do PO ; and it prayed that
they might be ordered to bring in ouch bills for the purpose
of being taxed. The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, doubt-
ing whether, under the circumstances, the court had joins-
..
make the order prayed for, directed the petition to

.
dieuon to
stand over, with liberty to the petitioner to tile a bill as r
to enable the court better to see the merits of the ease. Sir
G. Stephen and the ether solicitors presented a petition of
appeal against that decision, and Mr. Bass presented another
of appeal praying as, by his former petition, that the bills
might be referred for taxation. These petitions were argued
before the Lord Chancellor in May last.
His Lordship, now giving hia judgment, stated the circum-
stances, and rid, the main paint raised by Mr. Bass's peti-
tion was, whether the sum of 28,0001., paid by the acting
committee of the company to Sir G. Stephen, was the right
sum fur his professional services. It appeared that Sir G.
Stephen had been joint solicitor to ti.e Direct London and
Manchester Independent Rail* ay Company, of which the
petitioner was a member. Being desirous of resigning such
office, Sir G. Stephen made a proposition to the company to
give up all the papers and documents relating to the company
at his hands, and afferd any assistance that might be required
of him, upon being paid the sum of 28,0001., as compensation
in full for all his professional services. Several letters passed
between the parties, and eventually the sum demanded was
paid by the acting committee in four checks, and a receipt
in full of all demands signed by Sir G. Stephen. It ap-
peared from the affidavits filed in support of the appeal that
at the time of this arrangement Sir G. Stephen had
in his hands a great quantity of valuable docu-
ments relating to the company, and threatened to
take proceedings for the recovery of his costs unless his
demand was agreed to, and the documents themselves proved
how much the company were at the time in his power. Mr.
Bus was no party to this arrangement, but pretested against
it; and when a bill was filed against him, as a member of
the acting committee, for misappropriating the funds of the
tympany, he immediately applied to have the bill of costs of
Sir George Stephen taxed. The first question to be con-
sidered was, whether the relative position of solicitor and
client was so far made out between Sir 0. Stephen and Mr.
Bass, as to entitle the latter to call for a taxation of the
former's hill of costs ; and if so, whether he could do so by
petition, or only by means of a hill is chancery. Did the
fact of Mr. Base being a member of the acting committee, a
trustee, in fact, for the shareholders, make out such a posi-
tion ? Did his being a shareholder himself constitute him a
client of Sir G. Stephen ? His lordship read eerier sections
of the act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, the act for consolidating the laws
relating to attorneys and solicitors, ander which the present
petition was presented, and which gave the court power
to refer their bills of casts for taxation rammarily,
upon the application of the party liable to pay
them; and his lordship then proceeded to say that
Bar, having been one of the committee:who had engaged
Sir 0. Stephen as solicitor to the company, was in his ( the
Lord Chancellor's) opinion liable to him for the amount of
his bill of costs for such professional service*. Such also sp-
peered to be the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
otherwise he would hare dismissed the petition, iasteed ot

letting it stand over. He regretted that he had not
furnished with any note of the Vice-Chancellor's judgment
The only ether pont to be considered was, supposing thi
Mr. Bose was entitled to call for taxation of these bills.
coats under ordinary circumstances, was there anything
epecial in the case to deprive him of that right ? The S.,'
of payment Gould not be any bar, for the court had in
awes referred solicitors' bills for taxation after payment.
Nor was there any contract proved between the parties
themselves to show that Mr. Baas had waived kis right
tax the bills, although the nature of the receipt given by b.
0. Stephen showed his intention to be to exclude
any taxation. There were, therefore, no special cin
stances in the case to oust the jurisdiction of
court to order the taxation of these Mile,
on the contrary, although the money was say
to have been (raid for work and labour done, no r
whatever had been furnished of such services. And, .
it was manifest that Sir 0. Stephen had used pressure
undue isfluence in obtaining payment of the 28,0001. ;
the evidence also prey. --d that the documents in Sir G.
phen's hand, at the time were very much wanted b
company. The terms in which • solicitor thought -_
draw up a eettlement of account could not oust the jurisdie.
lion of this court over the taxation of their bills of costs.*-
therefore the usual order must be made upon Mr. Bass's
tition to refer the bilis of costs of Sir 0. Stephen, in re.
of this railway company, to the master. for taxation,
there was nothing in the ease to compel Mr. Baas to fr
bill to obtain suck relief.—His lordship, in the course .
judgment, referred to several cases; among others,
" Waters v. Taylor" (2 Mylne and Craig); " In re Rhodes
(8 Beavan); " In re Callen " (9 Beaver).
Id I:011.Yr V. WILK INA—SOLICITORA.—P•RTNFRAh..
—INFORMATION.—This motion, to dissolve an information
granted by the Vice-Chancellor of England last week,
pied the rest of the dar.—Adjourned.

Before the vice-Chancellor of England.
RATCLIFFE v. BOND.—BILL TRANRACTIONB.—The
Chancellor delivered judgment in this Cale, which e
guel at great length during Hilary term.
The Vice-Chancellor said it did not appear to him
there wee any evidence produced which would enable
to continue the injunction. The plaintiff's equity depended
upon the fact that the bills were suppressed. It was -
tainly a very singular transaction, but upon the cue ,
by the defendant it wu impossible to fix him with any
ledge of the previous trans action. The order for dissolving
the injunction must therefore be made absolute.
Sutra O. TEE EAST INDIA COIIPANY.—POWER
MARINE BOARD AT MADRAS.—LAW OF PRINCIPAL
AGIENT.—The Vice-Chancellor delivered judgment i,
case, the facts of which have been folly reported in
press. The snit was instituted by the plaintiff,
who wu captain of one of the East India Company'
ships, called the London, to restrain the comp,
from proceeding against the plaintiff upon a
entered into by the plaintiff upon the purchase of a ciL
of cotton from the East India Company.—His Honour,
delivering judgment, said he had carefully read over
wipers in this case, and, in the first place, as to the on.
of the East India Company, it appeared to him that
could not have done otherwise than they bad done. It
quite right for them to take the opinion of a court of e
upon the question, and act strictly accorzling to the rip
the parties. It appeared that a bond had been given
plaintiff, under which the company was entitled to a
less there was some equity apart from the bond to
their right given by that bond. lie thought, howes
the question rested entirely upon the Icters
passed between Captain Smith and Mr. Chamier, the 4
tary of the government board, and Mr. Underwood,
secretary of the Marine Board and Commercial Committee
of Madras. It appeared that upon the arrival of Cap,
Smith at Madras he received a letter from Mr. Chamier,
which he wan directed to place himself under the ordr
the Marine Board, and in that letter Mr. Chamier
himself chief secretary to the government board. After
it appeared that Capt. Smith entered into an agreement
she Marine Board for the purchase of some cotton of an
ferior quality, then lying in the company's warehouses
Madru, and the offs r made by him was transmitted by 1
Underwood to Mr. Chamier, with a statementthat it we
best offer which, under the circumstances, was likely
chained. An answer to this was returned by Mr. Charm
in which he stated that the offer would be acne'
agreeably to the recommendation of the Marine '
and that Capt. Smith might be permitted to
the portion of the tonnage of the ship celled the corn;
three-fifths, but that he was to pay such freight I
cotton as the company should see fit to determine.
lever was shown to Capt. Smith by Mr. Underwood,
Capt. Smith thereupon stated, in the most explicit ma
that he would not carry on the transaction it he were
obliged to pay the freight. He was then assured'
Marine Board that he ehould be allowed to take the
free of freight. but he was required to sign the usual
entered into by captains of ships upon the purchase
of the company 'a merchandise. The form of this lx
that the freight should lie paid, but a letter was WI
Capt. Smith by Mr. Underwood at the same time .
bond was forwarded to him, in which it was expressly
that, notwithstanding the clause contained in the
no freight would he charged on the cotton purchased b,
captain from the government. All these letters were wris
by fir. Chamier and Mr. Underwood, as the secretaries
the respective boards to which they belonged, and it
first letter the captain was told expressly that he s.
lace himself under the orders of the Marine Board.
Ilonour thought, that under these circumstances Cr
Smith was fully justified in placing absolute reliance
statements made to him by Mr. Underwood. The lam
of Mr. Justice Bayley in a case which bad been cited
the argument was descriptive of what the law was relating
principal and agent ; it was laid. down, that where -
authority was given by a company to their agent,
agent exceeded his power, those who instructed the
must hear the loss, and not the innocent party. It was
that the impression produced upon the mind of Csr'
frow the letter addressed to hint was, that be was at
to consider that in executing the bond he was discharged
from the obligatioa to pay freight for the cotton. His Ho-
nour's opinion was, that the government was bound by th'
act of their secretary just as much as if the contract had br
entered into by the government themselves, and that r
Smith had made nut a clear case of defence, and was
to the relief sought for by him. The only other
teas as to the c ate, and he considered, upon this po
as Capt. Smith had acted perfectly right througl
proceedings, the company must pay the costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nut Pane.—Before Mr. Justice Erie.
TIDIWRY V. BILYANT.—SEDUCTION.—Ia this
Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Atherton, appeared for the
and Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., with whom was Mr. L-
couneel for the defendant. This was au action
recover compensation in damages for the injury the
had sustained by the defendant having seduced his
in-UN, one Caroline Floyd.
Mr. Crowder, in stating the cue to the jury,
This was a case in which the plaintiff had to cimpbain
very grievous injury which had been inflicted upon hit
the defendant. The plaintiff was a most respectable
son, though in the very lowest station of life, yet hi
satisfied that the jury would consider that his domestic
' fort i.ad been destroyed. So poor was the plaint' - -
had been obliged to sue in forma pauperis. The
followed by him was that of a horse.keeper,
putilic.house, in Fulham, and he resided at
place, near Par on'xgreen. He married, ninetee_
ago, a Mrs. Floyd, and it was her daughter by a former
riage who formed the subject of the present inquiry.
plaintiff's wife carried on the business of a laundress, io
she was assisted by her daughter, Caroline Flop'
defendant was a clerk in the Treasury-office in the
He became untainted with plaintiff's daughter-in
February, 1846 ; and it would seem that he gave h.
order to make some shirts, which he made a pretext
visiting her. An intimacy soon followed, and the r
was that, in December, 1846, Caroline Floyd found '
enceinte. She informed the defendant of her -
when he admitted himself to be the father, and pi
provide for the child. He now came to a part of
which would be deposed to en the solemn oath
herself, and which would make this ease most
the defeadant. It was this one occasion,
plaintiff's daughter-in-law mentioned her pregnant
defendant, he said, " You had better give the little
some prussic acid and get rid of it." He (the
counsel) understood it would be said to-day that
fendant was oat the father of the child. The child
on the 13th of April, 1847, and the plaintiff had
the expense of his daughter-in-law's confinement.
fondant hal refused to make any compensation,
(erred dragging into a court of justice the family
injured. The jury would hear the evidence
Floyd herself, and it would he for them to ,
damages the phintiff was entitled.
Caroline Floyd examined by Mr. Atherton
daughter of the plaintiff's wife by a former husband.
now 22 years of age. I have lived with my mother
since her marriage with the plaintiff It is 19 p
my mother married the plaintiff. The plaintiff
horse keeper at the Ship Tavern, Fulham : he was
horse keeper at the George. Daring the last two
mother has carried on the business of a laundress.
waisted her, and managed the affairs of the house.
the defendant George Bryant ; he is employed as
the Treasury-office in the Temple. I first became •
with the defendant in Feb. 1846, and kept up an
once with him from that time. The defendant empi
to make some shirts in March, 1846. He came
mother', house almost every night while the eh;
making. Sometimes my mother was present, and
not. In the course of my acquaintance with the
we became intimate, the result of which was that
myself in the family way in the month of Nov., It
informed the defendant of that fact in Dec.,
He then asked me if I knew Mr. Howard
Mr. Ford. I said I knew the former. I again -
the defendant in March, 1847, on the subject. He
December, he would allow me 2s. fel. a week for t.
whim it was born. I said I would not take it um
agreed to allow it from the time 1 became in the family
Uponthat defendant said my mother would throw ...-
parish, and he would pay what the law allowed.
said he would pay Use 2s. 6d. either weekly, monthly,
quarterly. He told me that he would give me • -
the Lying-in Hospital, which would cost him three
Defendant said I must fgo to service, and put the c)
nurse. Before the child was born defendant .
glee " the little devil some prussic acid and get
That was in December, 1646. I remember when I
the defendant about providing some clothes for the
saying that his mother had had a child which had
he would get her to give him its clothes. In April,
was delivered of a child, of which the defendant en
Mau. Previous to my confinement I was in Ell health,
math to attend to any Intent's'. I was obliged to
MAW &Undone io =megaton. The baby

I.
lv.!. l•
J 7.
3 i..
. ,
of been provided at say father-in-law's expense. My mother was coos-
dgment. wiled to have a woman in the house six weeks before I was
ins that confined at 3s. • week. I was attended by a medical gentleman.
e bills of of clot aunt of Rouse. There was• nurse engaged, when L i
inythiag was confined, at 7s. 6d. a week I was six Weeks before I
he fact recovered, so uto be able to attend to the household arias.
in many The child is living at my father-in-law's house, nod has been
apnoea kept by hint ever since its birth. Crou-examined by Sir.
i parties Humfrey: lam now twenty-two years old. I lint became I'
right to acquainted with the defendant in February, 1846. I had
in by Sir comae:ion with Mr. }toward before I had any intercourse
exclude with the defendant. It was sex months after L ceased to
eircum• have any connexion with Mr. Howard, that the intimacy
of the with the defendant began. I went before Mr. Beacon, at the
L, for. Hammersmith police-court, to swear this child against the
'apposed defendant in July, 1847. My mother went with me. and
account she was examined. On that occasion Mr. Beaton el missed .
I, again, the case ; he beard all that the defendant's counsel bad to
um and say, but would not hear what I had to say. I did not swear
K. ; and that I had never had any connexion with Mr. Howard; but
G. Ste- I said I had net had anything to do with him since I became
by the eequainted with the defendant. Mr. Howard was not mai-
m fit to ing for are outside the court, but I met him on my way t
juriadie. thither. My mother did not know that I had had any
•
osta, and connexion with Mr. Howard when I went before the magi*.
acs'sto pc- trate. She did not know it until -day. I have been
1 respect examined by an attorney. He inquired if I had ever had l
ition, as connexion with any other man than the defendant, and I •
to file a told him I had not. Mr. Howard is not now with Mr. •
.
se of his Rouse, and Ido not know where he live:. I saw him last this
hen, to morning outside the court, and he said, " Good morning." .' .
thodes" He attended my little boy (the defendant's child) when I .**
was ill, and that was charged in Mr. Rouse's bill. Mr. .
raeusr. Howard was present at my confinement. The last time I
'mitten taw him to speak to him was about two months after MI
ek, eau. confinement. The connexion took place at Mr. Rouse's
house when I went to see Mr. Howard, being unwell. I . 1
will swear that I have never been at Mr. Rouse's hr my-
self so late as a month before the child was born. Mr. Rouse
did not know that I had had connexion with Mr. llowaril A
'he Vice-. till I went before the magistrate. My mother was present ~ . I
was ass- when the defendant spoke about giving the child the prussic
acid. Oa one occasion, when the defendant spoke about
sin' that providing for the child, my cousin Sophia was present, but
.ble him she is now down in the country.—Reexamined by Mr.
iepended Crowder : Upon my solemn oath I never had connexion with
, .
was Me' Howard from the first time I knew the defendant. Mr.
ise stated Rouse attended me himself, because it was rumoured that! : 1 i
le. know- had alrerely been delivered and the child had been destroyed. i
limedeieff The child is a boy, and in good health.
Ann Cook proved that she lived next doer to the plaintiff,
07 THE and deposed to several of the facts stated by Caroline Eloyd.
1 I;
'AL AND Mr. Rouse stated that he was a surgeon, that he had
I ein this known the plaintiff's family for twenty years, and that be
, the Ez- delivered the plaintiff's daughter-in-law on account of r. 4
plaintiff, rumours afloat to the effect that she had already been '
,mPail's delivered and the child made away with. Had heard a
company rumour that his assatant, Mr. Howard, was the father, but
a bond paid no attention to it. His bill was 81.
quantity Mr. Humfrey then proceeded to address the jury for the . ..
mom, in defence, and said no doubt it was a very serious thing for a
tar all the man to have his .laugbfer seduced—God forbid that he .
e conduct
should say it was not ; but it was their duty to defend r 1
that they
young men from charges that were brought against them on
It was inch evidence as that of Caroline Floyd. He was not there
of equity to say because this girl had been seduced before that she was
rights of to be the prey of any one else. But if there was any truth
en by the in her statement, they might have braught the cousin,
r sue, un- .. Sophia," of whom mention had been made, as a witness— e
o displath she, es it was alleged, having been present on one oats- .
ever, that sion when his client admitted that he was the father I
'a which of the child. When the eye was before the wager- '
the secre- tote it was fully gone into and was dismissed. On
e•od, the the part of his client he was instructed to deny that he had
. .
oramittee ever had any improper connexion with this yeuag woman,l
of Capt. and he contended that a party making a charge of this sort '1
amier, in should at least be corroborated in her testimony. Nothing
orders of was so easy as to make such a charge, and nothing so diffi-
or signed cult as to rebut it. His client could not ecru indict this
After this young woman for perjury. He implored the jury to weigh li
went with well the circumstances of this cage fore they found a ver- I .
of an in- diet for the plaintiff, for if they did fled such a verdict it , 1
:houses at would go forth to the world that they believed the horrible i
dby Mr. story told by this young woman about his client's suggesting
it war the to her to poison the child, a thing a greet deal more likely to
kely to be be done by a doctor's auistaut. His client held an honour-
Chamier, able situation in the Treasury-office, and a mere verdict
• )
accepted found against him in such a case would ruin hie character
ne Board, and reputation. . i
o occupy Mr. Justice Erie then summed up, and left it to the jury . l
smsPenY's to say whether they believed the testimony of Caroline I i
ht for the Floyd or not. Oae thing which would ralier go to show
Ise. This that she had spoken the truth was, that she hard publicly ad-
ll.f
wood, and misted a very painful fact—namely, her connexion with Mr.
.t manner, Howard, which she might have denied had :he chose nto de t
•
ere to be so. Von the re was the evidence of the woman Ant. Cook,
red by the who proved meeting the defendant mid this )(mug woman •
the eott'n walking out together, which showed they w. re on such
sisal hood terms that if the defendant were not courting her, it might
see ofe any he very probable they were tog. thee for /erne improp' r par-
' bond .was poee.e as Occurrences such as the present were diffieult to .
written to prov. It w true this young woman had hewn ai dueed . ,
te that the
no reason why she should fall rI
,felY stated down that was
before, but although the barrier of virtue hod been thrown
the bond, the victim of any one who wished to take met-
ed by the vantage of her situation. If they determined on
.re written finding a verdict for the pl .iatiff they would say what
:reunite of damages they thought him entitled tn. Ha had been put to
and in the some expense, which they had heard pros ad, and they ;
ho was to would judge, under the circumstances, what woe a fur •
earde Hie compensation for the injury inflicted.
HlCaptain The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 131.
ince on the
e language
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1
iced during ~., e,
relating to`
...I ,rate
ul/ptieKdr.thtar '
greatestlittit: tip:llCoEf e.
y• general .
the
daayL°wltAliNe—casen°of 'c'o'llelhairt
.1
.1, if that Duke of Brunswick o. Stomata," which is an action
forcible entry by the sheriff; but ea, it was ocey part bead,
the agent
Was evident •
apt. Smith and adjourned till to-morrow, we postpone cur report.
s at liberty COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
discharged Nisi Parra—Before Mr F. Pollock, C.A., and a Common Jury. ~ i
His Ho- WINDLE v. 810015.—COLLIAION.—Me. 31.itttu, LI C , and .
Ind by the Mr. Joyce etre comae' fur the plaintiff; who is a dealer in ,
3 had been jewellery. Mr. Wiesen, Q.C., and Mr. Pearson represeuted i
that Capt. the defendant, who is a rowkeeper, earryiug on business at
vas entitled Edgeware-road. The action was brought to recover com-
er question pegution in damages for injuries sustained by the elaintiff, ,
point, that in consequence of the negligence of the defendant's servant.
ughout the On the 16th of August last, while the plaietiff was niakiug it .
•
business call at Tottenham-court-road, he entrusted his V
chaise to the care of a friend, who used the preceitien of
standing at the bone's head during the plaintiff 'a ,bsenee.
The vehicle was drawn up close to the kerb atone, which, at
that part of the street, was rather deep. While it wee thus
is Mee Mr. mending, on the left-hand side of the road leading towards
;he'
Lush, were waggon laden with hot grains, just then taken from Meux's
1-aintiffe, Hyde-park, the defendant's servant wee /ten driving a
brought to brewery, which is in the immediate neighbourhood. The
the plaintiff street was wide, and at that time there were no other
is daughter- vehicles of any sort in it. Oa approaching the plaintiff's
chaise the waggoner suddenly went from his horses' heads,
jury, said . where he had previously been, to the herb .tour. They l
I . .
implain of a immediately helined towards the same dinetion, aed the
ipon him by result was the collision complained of. The jure, upon this
eatable per. state of facts having been proved, found a verdict for the
a yet he was plaintiff, with 8/ lee. damages, that having been the full
'lsiestie cam' amount of the cent incurred for repairs.— There season appli-
intiff that he
eatien made to the learned judge to certify.
e occupation Sittings in Basco.
at the Ship xi
...ORGAN r. HEATH.— Allints EY.— RLTAINEK.—Thio
Lbi Iteet°ry- was an action on an attorney's bill for 281. odd, the coat. of a
rieteen tears chancery suit, which was resisted on the somewhat ravel
former mar- ground that the plaintiff having accepted the retainer of the
iquiry. The defendant was bound to go on with the star, and the not
-ess,ia which having dune so, though the defendant had offend to supply
'loyd. The whatever funds were neeereare fur the purpose, he cauld not
the Temple. recover the amount of his hill. At the trial befere Lord
ter-in-law in Denman at the last Midland Circuit his lordship directed a
gave her an verdict for the plaintiff. and a rule ha, ing been obtaiued for
' Prete"' fm a new trial on the ground of misdirection, Mr. Haw., with
id the result whom was Mr. Mellor, appeared to show oases
ound hersch against it. The ouestion was a sir:miler one, for
'r condition. few people would object to gettinx oat of a suit I
promised to in Chancery for 281. only. The defend int, however, COW:
of the ease tends, that e,:e attorney, Laving once accepted his retainer.
iof the girl had entered into a single and indivisible wetted to cley on
t serious foe the suit to the end of it, so long a+ hie client was willing tall
1, when the supply the funds. What the end of a Chancery suit might
nanny to the be it was difficult to say—it might be the worlu's end, off I
little devil no end at all, or it might be the Master's office. It might
(the learned last out several generations. He, Mr. bar 1, had himself '
hat the de- recently seen proceedings in a suit, the petitions ii which
lidadwbeasehr
a had been filed se far back as the reign of William a d
Mary ! 83 that if the doctrine of the defefolaut was our-
. Td
rhaed so dot
rent, an 'attorney must be immortal who would lirteke to
m.acnaoPlirene • see his client to the end of a Chancery suit. 'l'hero could
ly h e h
not, however, be any such obligation. Every sl-
ottirney had the power of backing out of a suit
between the
helanydeo. l what
... on giving reasonable notice to his client. The
notpartariiescs werea tthhos oncaly.ceek..l7suCininl,
n : I am a for broad
t the e lqeut te es rt di obi le
it, and it there appeared abundantly that the retain r wows,
mother ever limited one, and that having filed a bile he had dune all i.
5 _ years since that he had undertaken to do for the defendant.
e is now the The
learned gentleman then referred at length to the corre-
nu formerly apondence, which appearing to bear out his view of it to the
I '
. 1
wo
Years. have full extent, Mr. Martin was called on to support hi, role.
sm. 1
know Wave He submitted that the letters left it open to the defendant to
as a clerk in this by a reference to the tell of costa—The court, however, I
*e. I contend that the retainer was a general one, and he fortified
1
r acquainted was clearly of opinion that the broad question advanced by
en evramt- the defendant was not raised, and that the retainer loiug a
mployed me
limited and qualified one on the correspondence, tilt plaintiff
use to my was entitled to recovers—Rule discharged.
shirts were
szmitENS,—lol.NSionsequence
d sometimes -
le defendant
STABLISST.REANTTIoOrRPDiTT PETTYy
that 1 found E
Iv•, 1846. 1 of the large increase in the population of the parish of West
Dec., 1846 Ham, numbering near 10,000 souls, the magistrates acting
°wird and for the half-hundred of Beansntree, in the county of Essex,
in went to have established petty sessions, to be held every fortnight, at
He said, in the Swan, at Stratford. This has been long wanted, tine
for the child business transacted at Ilford having frequently key: the
it unless he magistrates on the bench days engaged from 10 o'clock in
family war. the morning until late atnight. For the future, sessions will
wme on the I be held on the Monday at Stratford and on the following
Defendant Saturday at Ilford. The ' magistrates who preside are Sir H. •
monthly, or Pelly, W. Cotton, Esq., W. Davis, Esq., and W. W. Mart-
a ticket for I land, Euq.
roe
'chilronue"tto. _
told me to POLlCE.—YEontanoy. •
et rid of it." BOW-STREBT.—PeIIe-orrice ROBBERY.— T. Eagle,
n I spoke to a clerk in the General Post-office, was finally examined,
he child, his charged with stealing two letters containing money, the
ad died, and property of the Postmaster-General. The primes- was an- •
prig, 1847, I played, on the morning of the Ist inst., in dividing letters, 4-
ant war the and was observed from the gallery by a ens:eager to weevil I
health, and one letter under his handkerchief and the other among
ged to have some newspapers, both of which were subsequently found on
7 Wain was his paws. lie sated that it war the Ant time he had
ir
• _. _