The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.• A.EstEttimi:

11111111••......;.;1;ar:.. Bar.lir rim Irmo elm, haw. Magni
tams., N.. littwor Ai *so Mit. Kim:4 'Pi are. 1
POWLial O. Tim “IttiT Itaii.Way Colt-
pAWr.—A,:ri,i Tn lir...etit CoMerrolaTiom eon Is •
JUST Spann 10 buoim t-oavEl EU lot' Tat DEFENDANT*.
Itatkatat.
This action wits tried before Loral Campbell at the List
ariiirs betel at Bristol, when a verdict wits bunt fur the
plaintiff nu the lint count with 451. damages, and fur the
defend tilt. on the rein. •44 counts.
Mr. tutu, lids,now noised for a rule to enter a verdict
for the gib ,oduiu, wi nu, ro.t count, and, if it should be-
tome uee.ssary, Mr a new trial. The action aits brought
to neuter loan eti • fur ;alleged negligence on the part
of the &dewing. in the carriage of a macie lantern,
an imtaWaii,iiti. light apparatus, and other articles, which
wire rittru•tett to the Great Waster's ItAleray Company to
he c venal Iron L;ristol to Nlmitpelwrrovr, lirsnipton. The
priucipal pm upon the record by the defeatiants wag a
dental that tin good, were itelterreil to the cowpony on the
same teruis 6•• wt forth in the declaration, viz., to be de-
livered at Itrompton. The plea stated that the planatilf
had not r 4.11.11. with the run.htinn, of the company re-
specting the rani of prove the plaint or. ca..,
the ray..ipt giech hor the guide at Bridul er.v put in evi-
dence, which anted that the tufaigitusy would not be liable for
any d done to Was. above the value of 101., and that nu
claim fir lied*: would be allowed unless made within three
gay. after Va.. goals had beau delivered. Upon the plaintiff s
package. a •Ng at the Paddington station they were put
into a cart Is pa ws% natal. it Sherrilan, a carrier,
who was employed by the company to take the goods to
Wonsan. The bon cootaining the magic lantern and
other apparatus wa. thrown violently on the ground, and
the artivh• wi-re Rrurupton, it appeared, was
beyond the tuuit. a thin winch the company themselves
undertool. to Col.try itoioitil, and by their 10th bye-law it
wa..t...,1 that if the conijaany receiv.il goods to be car-
ried hiy I their MIAs they would mil, an additional
charge, but would not be answerable fur them
alter they had pawe4 out of their hands, The
learned onsits..l now submitted that the company
were nut 1.4151 r for the injury which had been dune to the
plaintiff '0 property. Whin Mr. Fowles apidied fur coin-
pen.ati tttt 1,.• was illfurnitil that the ildendants were out
halite, but w.f.. Witten./ to hare the articles repaired or to
get new ones. Accordingly they were sent to a manufac-
turer at Bristol, lint Were nut returned for some time, and
the plaint ilf then made a claim of 71410/. or YAW, which sum
the defendant. refused to pay. Mr. lhitt now urged that
the company huh only :tweed to convey the goads to Pad-
dington, and then ta deliver them to a sub-carrier ; and
that therefore they were nut responsible fur the injury
which had been done to them.
The court granted it rule.
Ben, r Pntitta.7.-Ifer inn ltatmar

This active was tried before Mr. Justice Wulhauls, at the
last anises at Liverpool, when a verdict was found for the

Maintiff.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., now moved, pursuant to leave
reserved, for a rul, to set aside the I erdiet, and to enter a
non-suit. 'the plaintiff was the meditate of a bankrupt
named Horrocks, and the action was brought fur money
had and received by the defendant, to the use of the
plaintiff, as assignee. 'the defendant pleaded non
assumpsit. It appeared that .111 V time in the
year IttiO the bankrupt llorruek4 and the de-
fendant were partners at Liverpool. The baukrupt
lived at Manchester and the defendant at Liverpool, and
they were in the habit of engartind in partnership transac-
tions gen, rally, but principally ni the purchase of railway
shares. in the month of December, limit). the defendant ,
bought stock in the London and North Western Railway to
the amount of ••01/. and in January, 15.31, he purchased
7001. worth of .lock of the South Eastern Railway Com-
pany. The course of payment for the stuck was generally
this: When Petrie purchased any shares be got an &dream
of money us them as near their true value as he could, and
the balance was raised by a bill passing between the parties.
On the 28th of January, after the purchase of the South
Eastern Railway shares by l'etrie, the bankrupt bought
about 1,0001. worth of London and North Werern stock,
which war paid for in this manner. The amount of
the purchase money was 1,2121. I'etrie, through a
broker at Liverpool, borrowed 1,0001. on the stuck,
and the remaining 2121. was raised by a bill
which lhsrrocas drew upon a mere nominal partner
in Loudon. This bill was given to Petrie, and he got it
diteounted by some bankers at Liverpool. This money
Petrie had ultimately to pay, so that he paid not only fur
his own shares, but also 241. of the purchase money of
llorrocks's shares. About a month alter this transaction
two letters were written, which Mr. Atherton, who repre-
sented the plaiatitf at the trial, contended, had the effect of
putting art cud to the partnership, as far as regarded the
set of shares which had been purchased hut, and of making
in point of fact Petrie the purchaser of his own shares,
and the bankrupt the purchaser of his own also. On the
3rd March Hormel., was arrested at Manchester on a
charge of forgery, and taken up to Loodou, where the
offence had been committed. On the ith of Mauch he
executed a general aseigument for the benefit of his credi-
tors, and un the Bth the attorney, under the assignment,
gave a notice to Petrie, which it was now contended
could not be treated as any notice at all of a prior act of
bankruptcy. On the 10th, the defendant, who was a large
creditor 01 llorrocka, got, an order from him upon Cham-
bers, the broker at Liverpool, who had negotiated the ad-
vance of 1,0)0W. on the last share transaction, which bid
been done in Horrocks' name, although on the partnership
account, to deliver the stock to Petrie. Petrie took this
order to Chamber+, who sold out the stock. After the sell-
ing the stock Chambers retained the 1,0001. which had
been borrowed upon it, and paid over the balance, which
was 2101. to Petrie. It was this sum of money which the
maim:lees of liorrueka hail brought the present action to
recover, contending that the letters before alluded to nude
that which woe originally a partnership transaction a sepa
one fur party, made made the 201. the property of
the bankrupt counsel now argued against
this view of the ems, and contended that it was a protected
troaseetiee wader the Bird tactics of the Beehimptcy
Ctessiidetiee AM, and Ike it bad bees bided thei s N.