The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

BeronPir.jWsticeP.;le.
IN TIM MATTER OF 111/TCNINSON.--CONDIICT OP AN
knolls/rt.—The Attorney-General moved for a rule calling
en a Mr. Hutchinson, an attorney of this court, to show
cause why he should not answer the matt, re rot out in an
affidavit. The application was made on behalf of a Mr.
Newman, who had been in the habit of employing a Mr.
Brookbank, an attorney at Brighton, in laying out money
en securities, an account of which was entered in a passbook,
and the securities deposited in a strong box, one key of which
was kept by Ili. Newman and another by Mr. Brookbank.
On the death of Brookbank, Mr. Hutchinson or
seeded to his business, and continued to ma he
Mr. Newman in ugh matters In 1946 Battalion
told Newman that a Mr. Hill required an ammo of
2001., for which a cheque was sent and the security wawa
by Hutchinson in the par-book. Half-year's interest wee
paid on the sum by Hutchinson. Another Oro* of
Ma was made tea Mr. Mervyn. There being sego Or
inlarity in the poemst of the interest, Mr. Newsom weir
to Brighton, and, opening the O.,mg
_box at Hutehrese's
&Hee, found no securities from either Hill or Mervyn. In flar,
no money had been advanced to them but the interest lied
beenpaidibyHutchinson. If theft two cases did not quite closely
constitute a felony, there was another which was eufficiatO
Among other securities was a bill of exchange for 1501. •
and when Mr. Newman applied to the acceptor for thZ
principal he found that Hutchimon had already called it in
saying be was authorised to do so, and had nevertheless ac-
counted to Mr. Newman for the interest. This was clearly
such a fraud in his character of AR attorney. as would war-
rant the granting of the ruleN.—Rule granted.
W Prin.
LAMOND e. DATALL.—ACTION FOR TIES PRICE OP RAIL-
NAT SCRIP.—Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff, who lithe
well-known railway share auctioneer, at the Hell &Commerce,
and who sought to recover 791., the price of ten East
Indian, and thirty Ambergate and Nottingham shares,
which the defendant had bought at one of his sales.—At
the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Bramwell, for the de-
fendant, submitted that the plaintiff mast he nonsuited on
several technical grounds, all of which were overruled by
the learned judge, excepting one, via., that the plaintiff
demanded 791. the rum for which' the shares had been sold
to the defendaCt, whereas it was shown by his own wit-
nesses, that on the defendant's not taking the shares, they
were sold to a third party for 651. 10e., so that in fact only
161. 10s. was due—Mr. Justice Erie directed a nonsuit, with
leave to the plaintiff to move.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
DECLARATION FOR LIBEL.—O'BEIEN V. CLEMENTS
This was an action for a libel published in Bell's Life in
London, imputing to the plaintiff that he was a confederate
with persons who had cheated at cards, and was, therefore.
blackballed at the Royal Western Yacht Club. There was
a verdict fur the plaintiff, with 301. damages. The Attorney-
General (with whom was Mr. C. Clarke) now moved to arrest
the judgment, on the ground that the declaration was de-
fective, in not alleging that the libel was published concern-
ing those eircumstancen which rendered the publication
libellous, the publication not being libellous itself, but
merely rendered so by the facts stated in the inducement
The court thought the declaration sufficient, and refused
the rule.
SISMONDI) O. Marrs, M.P., AND OTREES.—RAILINAT
Consurrzmien.—This was an action against the managing
committee of the Southampton, Manchester, and Oxford
Junction Railway Company, for services rendered as a traffic
taker. The cause was tried at the Guildhall sittings, before
the Lord Chief Baron, and a verdict taken Tor the defendants,
the jury having assessed the damages contingently at 1001.—
Mr. Humfrey with whom was Mr. Bagley, now moved to
increase the damages from 1001. to Wl., and to enter the
verdict for the p ntiff. The plaintiff agreed with the de-
fendants to take the traffic on the proposed line, which con-
sisted of two branches, the one running from Andover to
Didcot, and the other from Andover to Swindon, at the rate
of 151. per mile, payable by three equal instalments, one 51.
to be paid when the traffic taking commenced, the
second 51. when the Wide tables were delivered, and
the third when the bill passed through parliament. The
defendants paid two instalments on 60 miles, but contended
they were not liable to the third instalment ante llTlttad never
passed through parliament. It was now submitted that the
plaintiff, as ho had done the work, was entitled to the full
payment, although the defendants thought fit to relinquish
the line. The plaintiff also claimed on 65 miles instead of
CO, and a further claim of 120/. for extra work, in respect of
which the Chief Baron, at the trial, thought the plaintiff
was precluded from recovering.—The court now determined
that the plaintiff could not recover for the third instalment,
as the event upon which he had agreed to receive it, namely,
the bill passing through parliament, had not taken place.
On the other points mused for the plaintiff, a rule nisi was
granted.
WHITFIELD V. BRAND.—This was en action by a sur-
geon who we the author of a work entitled " Tight-lacing
and its Consequences," to recover from the assignees of a
bankrupt, 'Limed Cunningham, the value of 1,500 copies of
his book, which had been wised and sold by the assignees
upon the bankruptcy. It appeared that the work was
printed in July, 1845, and sent by the plaintiff to Cunning-
ham's shop, in the Strand, where be carried on business as a
bookseller and publisher. About 200 copies were sold by
Cunningham; and upon his bankruptcy the remainder were
claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, but subsequently sold as
waste paper by the assignees, on the plea that being found
in the order and disposition of the bankrupt, they were pro-
perly available for the benefit of his creditors. Proof we
given that the work was delivered to the bankrupt to sell
upon commission, and that it we a common custom for book-
sellers to sell the works of authors on commission. Upon this
evidence a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, damages, 301.
Mr. Bagley now moved to set aside the verdict &MI enter a
nonsult, contending that the case of a bookseller was die
tinguishable hem that of a factor or broker, whose business
it was to sell the goods of other persons. A bookseller occa-
sionally sold the goods of others on commission, but his
business was mainly and essentially to dispose of goods pur-
chased by himself, and when a trade/man of this clue was
in the apparent ownership of goods at the time of his bank-
ruptey, the goods became the property of bis assignees under
the operation of the Bankrupt Act (6 Oeo. IV., c. 16). The
,urt said the facts of the case were sufficient to take the
itee•'.. in question out the operation of the Bankrupt Act.
I h. re was no roved upon which a bookseller, selling on
-eren asap, onJil be ished from a factor, and as it
was the castor to sell golds on commission,