The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-04 00:00:00

.uußl viCl4
The court sat at Linealn'a-ine.
111 AW r. TUACIRAi.

S:11 JOON STVAIT.

The plaintiff was Mr. R. Sties*. Francis, carrying en'
Intim... at No. 3, Catherine-street, Strand, and the defen-
dant was Mr. Harry Lee C . The action was brought
to recover the veto@ of omens printing work done by
the plaintiff for the defendant, but the only queetion
was as to who was liable for the amount, u the
charges were not disputed. The defendant bad for-
merly been in the army, but he had since trans-
posed his name to that of Carter Lee, under which he
gave a series of popular entertainments at Willis's Rooms
and in the province•. The entertainments were musical
and pictorial, and one was celled " Sketches and Scratches."
The plaintiff had printed the bills for this entertainment,
held at Willis's Rooms, and bad been paid by Mr. Nimmo,
of the house of Mitchell, in Sind-street, who told bim that
in future Mr. Carter Lee would be answerable for his own
orders. Mr. Carter Lee subsequently called on the
plsiatiff and introduced Mr. Nicholas Ls* Tone, who, he
said, would give the orders for him, as he was to if* on in
advance to engage rooms and settle the preliminaries for a
tour in the provinces. Accordingly, the various goods were
under Mr. Lee's direction, supplied to Mr. Torre, but now
the defendant repudiated all liability.
The defendant resisted the claim solely because Mr.
Torre, and not himself, was liable, as Mr. Torre was to
bear all expenses.
The jlry returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
I amount claimed.

This was a suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking tlige
specific performance of an agree's/at, dated the 19th of
July, 1842, by which the deft:Alma Tilaekray agreed to sell
to the plaintiff a leasehold house, situate at Sheffield, called
tne Cisywooel Inn. There were two &deadest', Thackray,
ho was the vendor, and Moore, who was • subsequent
purchaser at an increased price from Thaekray, who had
taken an actual assignment of the legal estate, and had
completed his purchase from Thaekray. The facts of the
ease were shortly these :—Thaekray, on the 18th of July,
1852, had • conversation with Mr. Wilkinson, an agent for
the plaintiff, which ended in an agreement for the sale to
the plaintiff of the house in question, at the price of 7151.,
and it was arranged that a written agreement should be
entered into. On the following day a memorandum of
agreement being prepared, was signed by Shaw, the plain-
tiff, and the defendant Thackray, and the plaintiff paid the
defendant Thaekray • deposit of 151. The defendant
Moore shortly afterwards agreed with the defendant
Thackray verbally for the purchase of the same property at
an increased pries of 7601., and on the 28th July Thaekray
executed a legal assignment of the property to Moore. On
the day fixed by thepleintit's contract for completing his
purchase the plaintiff tendered to Thaekray an assignment
for his execution, and then filed this bill to enforce the
specific performance of the agreement.
Mr. Melina and Mr. IL Stevens were for the plaintiff;
Mr. Salmon appeared fur the defendant Thaekray; and
Me. Russell and Mr. Speed were for the defendant Moore.
li?un the evidence it appeared that Moore, when he
entered into the agreement with Thaekray, was aware of
the prior agreement with the plaintiff, which, however, he
thought was invalid by reason of Thsckray being intoxi-
cated at the time. It also appeared that Thaekray, at the
instance of Moore. and prior to his agreement with Moore,
tendered the 151. to the plaintiff by way of repayment of the
deposit, which tender the plaintiff refused. The questions
were. first, whether Thaekray was intoxicated on the 18th
and 19th of July, when he made the agreement with
tiff; and, secondly, whether it was competent for
under the circumstances, to avail himself of the defines
which Thackray might have made of his being intoxicated,
and so retain hie purchase in opposition to the plaintiff's
claim.
The Vies-Chancellor, after stating the circumstances of
the case, said whatever the court might have done as be-
tween Thackray and the plaintiff alone, yet that the real
defendant Moore, having subsequently purchased with full
notice of the prior agreement, and that it was not compe-
tent for him to avail himself of a defence that Thackray was
intoxicated when he entered into the first agreement, and
although Moore had procured from Thaekray en assignment
of the property, he should fail in his duty if he did not give
to the plaintiff the bent fft of the contract as against both
the detendanta, and decree • specific performance, with costs
to be paid by Moore ; and he should make no order as to
Thsekray's costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEsTERDAT.

1:1TIMOS 111

•
SIDUI. MIORTIIAN. AEI WALL

THE QUEEN V. J. Z. FLETCHI

INFORMATION

LIIIIL.
Mr. Phipeon moved on behalf oft he justices of the
borough of Grantham far • rule calling on John Robert
Fletcher to show cause why a criminal information should
not be filed splint him ter the publication of a libellous
hand bill reflecting nn their character. It appeared that at
the Quarter Sessi•ms for the borough held on the 30th of
August. 1852, two persons named Berridge and George
Smith had applied for quit licenses which were panted by
the justices. Burridge was the son of one of the justices,
was connected by marriage with another, sad bad himself
been nominated for the ensuing year ; Smith was the bro-
ther-in-law of a town councillor, who had been mayor of
Grantham in 18.50. At the licensing meeting in 1853, held
en the sth of September, Burridge and Smith obtained a
renewal of their licenses. On the same occasion Mr.
Fletcher, a spirit merchant of the town, and a person named
Bradford, applied for spirit licenses for the first
time which the justices refused to grant. On
the Bth of September • handbill printed by •
Mr. Lime, but written and published by Mr. Fletcher, was
extensively circulated through the town, headed " Grantham
Justices' Justice," and imputing to the magistrates that they
had refused the liceases of Fletcher and Bradford only be-
cause they did not happen to be connected with a mayor,
magistrate, or town councillor. The justices entirely denied
that they had been influenced by the improper motives im-
puted to them, and he (Mr. Phipeon) submitted it was
necessary that they should be supported in the discharge of
their duty.
Lord Campbell said it was very desirable that the magis-
trates should be supported, but the wart must take care at
the same time not to present their conduct from being can-
vused when they acted improperly. Here they dented all
improper motives, and • prima facie case had therefore
been made out for the interferes.e of the court.
Bale nisi.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-TESTERDAT.
aTIIIIO.I DI 110,00...-11001111 Clllll/ MIMS mans, 1L acme
MAL 1.11, 111. JVITICS WILLIAMS. AND MIL MIMICS TALPOCIIII,
LUCIA V. FIVIIIIIIT-11•110111

This was the first meeting under the bankruptcy of
Richard Spenceley and Jamas Maudlin Spenceley, of
Wapping and Rotherbithe, who bad traded under the firm
of Spenceley and Sun, as sail-makers, ship-chandlers, ship-
smiths, Re. The following creditors were appointed trade
assignees: Mr. John Jameson, warehouseman of Bread-
street, and Mr. Nathaniel ironmonger, of Shedwell.
Mr. Johnson is the offieial assignee, and Mews. Sole,
T u , and Turner, are the s)liciton under the bankruptcy.
The bankrupts' are estimated at about 2,0001. ;
the amount of assets is uncertain.

COURT OF

'.—YssreaDAT.

IN RE RPENCILIT AND SPZNCIILIIT,

This cue arose out of the following circumstances:—
Some sugar, worth about 3,1001., was shipped at Demerara
for Loedun, and upon it the plaintiff effected an insurance
with the defendant. In the course of the voyage the cargo
sustained an " average loss," and the present action was
brought to recover the portion of that be. for which the
defendant wee liable. The amount now sued for was only
71. 181. 4d., but many other action, had arisen out of the
same transaction, and the questions raised were stated to
be of importance to the shipping trade. The defendant, in
answer to the action, pleaded, first, payment of the amulet
clamed; secondly, that the amount had been adjusted,
and set uff from t underwriter to the assured ; and thirdly,
that the custom of the trade was, that the premium due
upon the policy should be set off against the adjusted claim.
The action was tried before the Chief Justice at the last
sitting in London, and the jury found for the defendant
upon the pies of payment.
Mr. Berjeant Bylea now moved for a new trial, upon the
grounds that the verdict was against the evidence, and
that the Chief Justice had misdirected the jury in leaving
the eau to them, there being, in fact, no ease for their con-
sideration. The plea as to the set-off was demurred to, and
the court held that it was bad. It appeared in evidence that
the plaintiff had transferred his interest in the policy
to:a gentleman named Sutherland, in the usual way, by
writing his name in the margin. Afterwards a person
named Pemberton. who had previously been clerk to the
plaintiff, was employed to take the policy to an average
Mater to get the amount adjusted ; but not only was this
done, but the amount due for premium was set of Many
witnesses were called to prove that this was done in accord-
ance with the custom pursued at Lloyd's, but none of them
could give a single instance of this being done where the
policy bad been previously assigned. This being so, it wu
now submitted to the Court that the custom was not proved
so as to affect this case, and that there was, therefore, no
lividness at all for the jury upon the plea of payment.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YMTERDAt.

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1853