The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-20 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

PEIOEVAL7.I4I3IIIIOIT.ICAN AN ♦DVERTISINO AGENT
REOGYIK THE PRICE Or ADVERTISEMENTS TOR WHICH HE
,T," NOT rim., l—Mr. Godwin, Q.C., moved for a rule to
show cause why the ilaintilf 'a verdict in this case, which
was tried at the recent wises for the county of Gloucester,
should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered. The action
was one by an advertising agent against a member of the
provisioual committee of a railway company, and the plain-
tiff had sought to recover tke price of the advertisements so
money paid for the use of the defendant, and also as
due fur wnrk and labour. The evidence, however, showed
that he had taut the advertisements, but that he had not
paid for them. The guertion, therefore, was, whether the
plaintiff, although he had ant the advertisements and was
liable to pay for them, could recover in this form of action,
and he (the learned counsel) submitted that he could not,
because the evidence did not support the declaration.
The court took time to consider whether the application
ought to be granted.

BAIL COURT.
Before Hr. Justice Coleridge.
The court, after hearing some cases on points of practice,
sat at Nisi Prins.
Lawm e. CLITTON,—PLEA OY INFANCY.—Mr. Wet-
eon and Mr. Reggio, appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Crowder for the defendant. The action was brought
to recover 3001. on a bill of exchange, drawn by one Cogh-
lan, and accepted by the defendant, who pleaded that be Wlll
under twenty-one years of age, at the time of the acceptance.
The affirmative of the issue being on the defendant,
Mr. Crowder began the cue, and stated that the plaintiff
was a well-known bill discounter, and the defendant the sera
ftir Jnckes Clifton, a gentleman of fortune in Nottingham-
shire. The defendant had pleaded his infancy to this action,
and there could be no doubt that it was a useful law, that a
person under twenty-one years of age should not be bound
by engagements on bills or mercantile transactions. The
I defendant was only 18 when he accepted this bill, and had
been beset bypersons likely to do him erelong harm. His
haw lad paid above 25,0001. for him: and if this bill had
Mrs as Masa trimuction, no doubt it would have been paid
elm
Sir Jacket Clifton was then called, and proved that his son
was born 24th December, 1828. On cross-examination he
stated that he was his only son ; that be bed been engaged
in sport eg transactions, and had betted. Be had no recel-
leetion of the time of his (witness's) marriage. He allowed'.
his son 1,0001. a year, and kept three houses for him. He
bad paid dharly 30,0001. for him.
Mr. Watson, for the plaintiff, commented strongly on the
nature of the defence, and contended that the only. proof
that the defendant was not of age was contained in the
evidence of his father, whose recollection was so imper-
feet that he could not remember the time of his own
marriage, and therefore it maid not be depended on.—
The
jury, under the direction of the learned judge, returned
• verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
sitting. is Beano.
ENTWISTLE V. DENT.—INTERSITISO TO FECTOILS.—This
action, which was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
Guildhall, during the after-aitlings of last Hilary Term, !
was brought by the plaintiffs, merchants in London, to re-
cover damages from the defendants, who, an Lectors, it was
alleged, had deviated from the instructions they received
respecting the sale of certain goods consigned to them by the
plaintiffs. It appeared that the plaintiffs sent a cargo of
cotton to China, with special directions to the defendants
to realise the proceeds and purchase teas, if they could
be got at one shilling per pound ; and teas
could not be had at that pries, then that they should buy
teas to half the amount realised, and silks for the re-
minder. The defendants purchased neither, until the
whole cargo was sold, and then they purchased teas at
one shilling a pound for the whole amount they had realised
—they purchseed no silk and sent the teas to England.
The plaintiffs realised 1,0001. by the resale of the teas, but I
were dissatisfied; as they stated, if their directions had been
carried out, that they would have made several thousand
pounds by the transactions. The question, therefore, was,
what was the proper construction Mho put upon the letter of
instructions ? The plaintiffs insisted that the defendants were
bound to obey the directions they bad received, and take
advantage of the tea markets, accordingly as the proceeds of
the cargo were realised. The defendants contended that the
were directed to wait until the whole cargo was sold, and
that they "sere not bound until then to purchase either teas
or silk ; and that, as teas were not to be had in the market
until the whole of the cargo consigned to them by the plain-
tiffs was sold, they were pstified in buying teas. A verdict
having passed for the plaintiffs, for 1,9001.,
Sir Fltsroy Kelly moved yesterday for a rule, calling on
the plaintiffs to show cause why that verdict should not be
set aside, and a new trial had, upon the ground of misdirec-
tion as to the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The rule was granted.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Moyne, req., Judge.
RIGHT OF LANDLORDS TO CHAROR DOURLS RENT TO
RNFOHCII POSSESSION.—POLLOCL V. Tues.—This wee an
action brought by a landlord to recover double rent in order
to obtain ponesuon of premises occupied by the defendant.
Mr. Moylan, after stating the cause of action, stated the law
of the case in correction of an error very prevalent. There
is no foundation in law for enforcing the possession of a
weekly tenement by the imposition of doable rent; but now
a very speedy remedy was secured to ell landlords by the
122nd sect of the 10th Vic., cap. 95. The right to sue for
double value was created by the 4th Oeo. 11., cap. 28; and
on referring to the first section, he found the words to be,
" in case any tenant or tenants for any term of life, lire., or
years, who nor are in possession of any tenement, shall wil-
fully hold any such teeements after the determination of any
such term or terms, after demand made or notice in writing
given for delivering possession thereof, then in such
ease such possessor or poessmon so holding shall
pay to the person or persons so kept out of peens-
sion at the rate of double the yearly value of
the tenement, for so long a time as the same is
tenanted, to he recovered as a penalty by action of
debt." It wee, therefore, clear that the words for life, lives,
or years did not apply to weekly tenancy, but to yearly
tenants ; and only in eases where the landlord determined
the tenancy by notice served on his part. The 11th
Oeo. 11., cap. 19, gay* the landlord the power to eon for
double rent (not double value) when tenants refuse to de-
liver up possession after the determination of their tenancy,
by notice on their part to quit ; but, although this act is
sot confined to tenants for lives or years, as the previous
set, still it refers only to cues when the notice to quit has
been given by the tenant to the landlord, and not by the
landlord to the %sant. The 18th section stated, "That,
great inconvenience having happened to laadlorda where
tenants have power to determine their leases by giving no.
tire to quit the premises holden by them, and yet refuse to
deliver up possession, be it enacted, that in MRS any
tenant shall give notice of his intention to quit the premises
holden by him at the tims mentioned is the notice, and shall
not accordingly deliver up pagandom at the time mentioned,
then the said tenant shall, from thenceforward, pay the said
landlord double the rent or sum which he should otherwise
tare paid ; and such double rent shall continue to be paid
during all the time such tenant shall continue in possession."
It was, therefore, clear that landlords had no power to
charge double rent to a weekly tenant who had not himself
given notice to quit and deliver up possession ; and the cue
must, therefore, be dismissed.