The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-03 00:00:00

ILato Enttlltgence.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
WATTS V. lIYDS.—DBED or COMPOSITION.—The plain-
tiff in this cause is a literary gentleman, the defendant is a
solicitor, and acted in that character for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff being involved in pecuniary embarrasarnents in the
year 1841 ; entered into a composition w ith,his creditors, in-
cluding the defendant. The latter, in pursuance of instruc-
tions received at a meeting of the creditors, prepared the
deed of composition, which was executed by the plaintiff of
the first cart, Mr. Spottiswoode and Mr. How of the second
part, as trustees for the creditors, and the creditors of the
third put, including the defendant. By this deed the plain-
tiff covenant. d to pay to the trustees 1,5001. in three years.
by instalments of 5001. in each year, and in order to secure
that sum for the creditors he further covenanted to insure
his life for the sum of 1,5001. The plaintiff did not imme-
diately insure his life, nor punctually pay the instalments,
but he paid 6001. in January, 1813, and then, or soon
afterwards, with the sanction of the trustees he
insured for 1,0001. only, that being the amount then
due from him under the deed. The whole of the 1,5001.
has been since paid to the trustees; but before it was paid
the defendant brought an action in the Court of Exchequer
spied the plaintiff for the whole of the original debt due to
him, being about 7301, and got a verdict and judgment for
that sum, upon the ground that, as the plaintiff bad not per-
formed his covenant to insure to the amount of 1.5001., the
defendant was release,' from the obligation of the deed of
composition. The plaintiff then filed this bill for an injunc-
tion is restrain execution on the judgment at law, and also
for relief in the way of release from all claims under the
composition deed, be having paid the whole sum therein
mentioned. The cause has been several times before Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, and this court also; it now came
on for hearing.—Mr. Bacon and Mr. Stevens, having fully
opened the facts of the case, submitted that the defendant's
agreement by the composition deed was binding on him.
Ile was well aware that the plaintiff had not insured foe
the 1,5001., and it was his duty, as his solicitor, to advise
and caution him to insure. But, in effeet, the plaintiff
performed the covenant, for he had paid one third of the
whole sum and insured his life for the remainder. The evi-
dence for the plaintiff merely showed that the defendant had
notice that the full insurance was not effected, and that he
waived all objections on that head.—Mr. J. Parker and Mr.
Hallett, for the defendant, went through the material parts
of the evidence, and contended that it did not show the de-
fendant wee aware of the non-insurance. He ought not to
be deprived of the fruits of his action at law. Not knowing
the plaintiff had not insured he could not waive his objec-
tions—Mr. Bacon replied.—The LndChancellor, after stat-
ing the material points in the cause, observed that the de-
fendant had brought his action on the ground that he had
been released from the obligation of the agreement in con-
sequence of the plaintiff not performing his contract by in-
suring for the full sum of 1,5001. It war quite clear and
admitted that the whole debt under the deed of composition
had been paid ; but if Mr. Watts had, as regarded the de-
fendant, lost the benefit of that deed by any omission of his
to comply with it, the defendant had as much red to insist
on that omission in a court of equity as be had already suc-
cessfully maintained it in a court of law. But bow stood the
facts ? That the defendant, on the sth of January, 1943,
knew Watts had not insured for the 1,5001. was estab-
lished to his lordship's entire satisfaction. On that
point the evidence was clear. The bill charged
that the defendant, in a conversation with the son
of the plaintiff, admitted be knew the plaintiff had not in-
sured, and, morever, that the defendant added, " It did not
signify because nobody knew it but themselves." The charge
in the bill was proved in respect to the past and dispensation
for the future. It said that the defendant knew what had
taken place, but expressly declined to take advantage of it.
One would expect from a man of business an express con-
tradiction ; but his answer was, speaking from en entry made
in his books at the time, and according to the beat of his re-
collection and belief—that he slid not express himself to that
effect. his lordship, looking at that answer, could not avoid
coming to the conclusion that the younger Watts had truly
stated what occurred. From that time till he brought his
action the defendant did nothing. He said he did not waive
his objection, but the defence on that point entirely failed
him. On the wh&e, his lordship thought the evidence was
so entirely in concurrence with the case made by the bill,
and so inconsistent with that set up by the answer, that he
fett bound to grant a perpetual injunction, restraining the
defendant from taking any further proce( dings at law in re-
spect of his demand against the plaintiff, to make a decree as
prayed, declaring that the deed of compromise was not void
or voidable. After some discussion between the counsel his
lordship was of opinion that the defendant should pay the
costs of the suit.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.
THE QUEEN KENSINGTON.—DUTIES Or OTRINEERS.—
In this cute a mandamus had been issued directed to two
overseen of the parish of St. Andrew, Eastcheap, command-
ing them to grant a certificate that a person named Hamper
was the actual resident of a house in the parish, with a view
to his obtaining a license as a licensed victualler. The de-
fendant (who was alone in office when the writ WAS tested)
made a return to the writ, upon which various issues were
raised which were tried before Lord Denmaa. The defend-
ant alleged that Hamper did not occupy an entire house in
the parish, the house in which he lived being rated in the
joint names of Day and Hamper, and the name of Hamper
did not at all appear, Day's name alone being placed on the
house. It was also shown that Hamper had let the greater
part of the house to Day ; and the act of parliament re-
quired that a licensed victualler should have the exclusive
possession of a house, so that the police authorities and
the magistrates might always have access to it. Upoa
the trial the learned judge had directed the
jury to say whether Hamper was the actual occupier
of the house, and they found that he was.
His lordship's ruling having been objected to, the court had
granted a rule nisi for a new trial ; and it was contended
that one inns was whether the defendant had a knowledge
of Hamper being the actual occupier of the house. Upoa
this a question arose whether or not, upon the facts, the de-
fendant had acted honestly in refusing to grant the certifi-
cate ; and, if he had, although his opinion might not he
eorrect, whether he could be held responsible ? The 3
& 4 Wm. IV. was also referred to, which enacted that a
license could not be granted unless upon the authority of a
certificate, signed by six rated inhabitant, of the parish, and
the overseer was compelled to give a certificate that such
persons were rated inhabitants. Subsequently an act passed
(3 & 4 Vict.) which directed that no license should be
granted to any person but the real and actual resident end
occupier of the house, and an option was gives to the six in-
habitants either to grant or refuse their certificate. Upon
this it had been contended that it was not compulsory on
the overseer to give a cenficate.—Lotd Denman now deli-
vered judgment, and, having gone through all the facts.
stated it to be the opinion of the court that it was not com-
pulsory on the overseer to grant the certificate, and the
writ therefore was insufficient.
Ni.. NM:R.—Before Mr. Justice Mightrnan and a Common Juts.
BAL111)0N V. SIiVITLEWOKTiI.—NEOLIOENT DRIVING.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages, for
the injury which the plaintiff had received from being
knocked down and seriously hurt, in consequence of the
riltligent driving of the defendant —Mr. Humfroy. Q.C.,
and Mr. C. Clark, conducted the ease of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Serjeant Shee, with whom was Mr. Bramwell, appeared
for t"e defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff, who was
an elderly man, was a pattern-traveller, and the defendant a
tea broker. Oa the evening of the loth January hat the
plaintiff was walking across the road near a sharp turn-
ing in May-street, Hackney, when the defendant
was driving past at the rate of from ten to twelve miles
an hour, and coming in contact with the plaintiff, he was
knocked down, and the chaise passed over him. The de-
fendant immediately pulled up, and gave orders for him to
be taken to a surgeon's. He was subsequently confined to his
bed for some time, and had not yet quite recovered the effect
of the accident. The surgeon, who saw the plaintiff imme-
diately after he received the injury, stated that he was
bruised about the head, arm, and leg, but that it
was not very serious. He complained the eezt day of being
sore all over, and he attended him for three weeks. The de-
fendant paid his bill, which amounted to 41. 10s., and had also
off red the defendant 101. as compensation for his loss of time,
&c. The plaintiff, however, required a much larger amount,
and had therefore brought the present action. For the de-
fines a ',MAW stated that the plaintiff had popped out from
behind a cart, and so got knocked down, and that the de-
fendant was only driving at the rate of eight miles an hoar.
This witness, however, admitted that if the defendant had
taken ordinary sere the aseident would not have happened.
It was elm pored that the plaintiff, when the dchndant
offered him what be considered to be reasonable comonse-
tion, had geld that he had put the matter into the hands of •
solicitor, who VU a friend of his, and who had promised.