The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-18 00:00:00

Lath intelltutnct.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.
Nut Pairs, Oviumatt.—Before Lord Denman and Special Juries.
WATSON N. LORD CRARLEMONT AND OTNEDA.—ACTION
TOR THE BACOT EDT 0 ',DEPOSITA PAID ON RA ILWIT SHARES.
—Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. Hogging,
were counsel for the plaintiff, who sought to recover frem
Lord Charlemont, Lord Claude Hamilton, and Sir William
Young, as money had and received, a certain sum which he
had paid on certain scrip shares in the Newry, Armagh, and
Londonderry Junction Railway Company. The plaintiff
had paid, on the 9th of September, 1845, a deposit of 21. 10s.
per share, and on his executing the parliamentary contract
and signing the subscribers' agreement, in compliance with
the condition of the letter of allotment, and the promise in
his own application for shares, the scrip was lamed to him.
Subsequently application was made to parliament for a bill,
which the company was obliged to abandon. The plaintiff
conceived that there had been a total failure of the conai Jer-
ation for his payments, and then brought this action. Diffi-
culties were thrown in the way of the formal proof, and
also of evidence tendered for the purpose of showing that
the company had, in advertisements, and a certain
report, made statements respecting its own affairs, and espe-
cially concerning the amount of the deposits actually paid,
which were not well founded, and amounted to legal fraud.
—Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Braman, for the defendants,
contended. I. That there was no evidence to show that all
three defendants were so connected on Sept. 9, 1846, with
the receipt of the plaintiff's money as to he all jointly liable
to him ; 2. That the plaintiff had, by executing the parlia-
mentary contract and the subscribers' agreement at the
time he paid the deposits, made these instruments the evi-
denee of his real contract with the defendants, and yet had not
produced these instruments; and 3. That if there had been any
misrepresentations in fact, it had net been shown that they
were made at a time which admitted of their having bad in.
ffuence on the plaintiff's determination to pay on the 9th of
September, 1846.—Mr. Butt and Mr. lloggins contended
that the objections firstly and thirdly taken by the de-
fendants were not supported by the facts, and that the
second objection could only apply to a case in which fraud
was not imputed.—Lord Denman said that he understood
the charge of fraud to mean that misrepresentations had been
made, not by the defendants, but for which they were an-
swerable. The question whether there had been such fraud
was for the jury, Upon the first point, also, he thought
that there was evidence to ge to the jury ; but the third ob-
jection he could not entertain.—Mr. Chambers then ad-
dressed the jury (or the defendants.—Lord Denman having
summed up, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—On
being asked by the judge, they said that they found fraud,
but did not impute it to the defendants.—Verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 751.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
ituureetz--Befor• the lied Chief Jostiee and a Special
Jury.
8 MARV v. ALIPON.—WATOANTY OP • 110141 E.—Mr.
Cockburn, Mr. Jame*, and Mr. Bramwell for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Addison for the defendant,—Thia
was an action to recover compensation in damages for an
alleged breach of warranty as to the soundotas of a horse
which the plaintiff had purchased of the defendant.
The plaintiff was a liorsedealer at Cricklade, in Wilt-
shire, and the defendant was a farmer at Darlington,
in the math of Ragland. The horse in question was pur-
chased en the 23d of September, 1848, at Howden fair, and
the
las paid for it by the plaintiff was 1601., the defendant
elm kim a warranty al mandnaer. The plaintiff
sicartly_ahamirda veld the animal to a gentleman of fortune
for UK, bat list wawilewasa rstassed it as unsound, and
the ph WM pume his bask the he had paid for it.
The oblotlfthimeepor ems&
whemow tho altWao be ezenined
by mayoral wfraskary seroombled am *mix opinion
that thelimme woo willbelet mmi,
kola a &same of the bit. The
plaited" thwein% charged the hatighgat with hulas spa-
isteisi a lima el warranty, amid 'abed upon hie teas
him lb mid to What& the bps". The
horwrier, owl dm heti (til was a
Wee ItuaiSr) was whine* Wig ea's npedtett bt
Thegremit Wks wet Aladin leought to rearm
ose bohatimitheime soil thi newel
MINT kr. .Ibellorea, old the gumbo&amin was whablit
animal was Pond at the time the defendant sold

Nukt Pam,

or not

$

it to the plaintiff, or whether it had become lame subsequent
to the sale.—Numerous witnesses were called on both sides,
and their testimony was, as usual in such cues, of a very
conflicting character.—The jury returned a verdict fer the
plaintiff, damages 991.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
San Panta—Beibre 6ir P. Pollock, CB., and a leaden
acerb] Jury.
DUNCAN O. DINSON.—To WHAT EXTENT ARE MASTITIS
or VISITSII/1 AUTHORISED TO SITIRCISE Dte0111IT101(
IN noanownio MONST on Barrowne Bonne f—Mr,
Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Willes, were counsel for the plaintiff;
Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. Barstow, for the defendant.
This case has been, in various wale, frequently brought
under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer. The
present action was brought by the owner of the cargo, valued
at 19,0001., shipped on board the defendant's vessel, the Lord
Cochrane, at Pernambuco, for debt cry at Liverpool, and a
portion of which was sold to satisfy a debt contracted by the
master for repairing ths vessel. It appeared after the ship
had set out on her voyage from Pernambuco with the cargo
In question onboard, she sustained inch injuries as ren-
dered it necessary that she should at once put boa. The
master, Captain Smith, caused sev.ral surveys to be made,
and ultimately had her repaired at the coat of 7,1321., which
he to, rrowed upon a bottomry bond. The vessel was then
spwards of thirty years old, and was, together with her out-
fit, before she left England for Pernambuco, valued at 4,6001.
The freight for the plaintiff's cargo amounted to 2,1001., and
ea the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool proceedings were
Instituted for the recovery of the seam lent to the master for
repairs. She was abandoned by the owner, and ultimately
sold by auction for 1,6761. under an order of
the Court of Admiralty, obtained by the lenders of the
7,1321. Although that sum had been expended upon there-
pairs, it appears they could have been done in London under
1,6001., and within a fortnight. For the plaintiff it was
contended that he should not be held responsible for say
part of the expenses incurred in repairing the "noel—that
his contract was to have his goods safely and securely de-
livered at Liverpool upon the payment of a certain sum, and
that the muter, to whom no misconduct or improper motive
whatever was imputed, had acted prudently in the seam he
had taken. For the defendant it was urged that the menet
had not acted prudently—that the expenses be bad incurred
in repairing the vessel were enormously extravagant and
unjustifiable, and that as the defendant bad given up the
ship and the freight to which he was entitled, he was no
furthcr liable.—The Lova Chief Baron, summing op, said
there could be no doubt of the shipowner's liability for the
amount of the bottomry hood executed by the master, and
expended upon necessary repairs. All the material facts
had been settled between the parties for the purpose of sub-
mitting hereafter to that court the questions of law. The
only question of fact to be decided by the jury was,
whether the conduct of the captain was prudent,
or such as a prudent owner of the vessel in
question would, under the circumstances, have pursued.
The question was whether a prudent man would, to order
to earn a little more than 2,0001., and save a vessel which
upon sale produced lets than 2,0001., expend upwards of
7,0001. upon her repairs. They should also take into their
consideration the fact that the cargo at the time on board
the vessel was very valuable, and, upon the whole. say
whether the captain had exerciWd a fair, honest, and prudent
judgment.—The jury found that the captain, as agent for
the owner of the ship, acted prudently in rering. her at
Pernambuco, aud returned a verdict fur the plantiff.—
Damages, 7611. Bs.
Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and a London Common July.
CROUCH c. BOUTHOATE.—SALIS Ix AUCTION.—Mr. Pri-
deaux and Mr. Joyce were the plaintiff 'scouneel. Mr. Chun-
hen. Q.C., and Mr. Swann, conducted the defendant's rase.
This action was tried on Thursday against the well known
book auctioneers in Fleet-street, tor alleged negligence in the
publication of advettisements of au auction, and the sale
thereat, in the month of May last, of upwards of 900 copies
of the London Art Union Prize Annuals, for 1845 and 1846.
The cause hutted from the sitting of the oeurt up to 6 o'clock.
It appeared that the plaintiff. who puechased the annuals in
question from Mr. Spriggs, their publisher, valued them at
8001., and obtained from the defendants, in the month of
April last, an advance of 4001. upon their security. The
defendants suggested that the reserved price determined
upon by the plaintiff was much too large, and on
the 4th of May, immediately previous to the sale,
he wrote to the defendaum to state, that although
he thought the prices they auggisted too small,
he would leave the whole matter an their hands, and, rely-
, ing upon their discretion, he was sure they would do their
beat for him. The sale took place on the Bth of May • up-
wards of 60 copies were bought in, but the proceeds
amounted only to 6361. By the evidence it appeared the
defendants had undertaken to advertise the sale " in all iho
London and provincial newspapers," and that " every book-
seller in the kingdom" should be furnished with a catalogue.
It was questionable whether the parties meant those stipula-
tions to be literally observed, but the fact was, the only ad-
vertieement which was proved to have been published in
any newspaper, either in London or in the provinces, ap-
peared in the Times, in three publications immediately be-
fore the auction. After the jury had been in consultation
for some time, one of them expressed his opinion that the
defendants bad been guilty of negligence by not advertising
the sale in a reasonable number of the metropolitan and pro-
vincial newspapers. They were, however, unable to agree
in their verdict at half-past six o'clock, when, by consent,
they were discharged until yesterdsy morning, when they
reassembled, and after having remained in deliberation for
several hnurv, returned a verdict for the defendant. Fre-
quent applications had been previously made to discharge
them without finding a verdict, but the plaintiff's counsel
refuted to consent to that proceeding; a coarse which the
learned judge designated as " extremely unjust."

ARCHES COURT.
Before Sir IL J. Flift.
Gotta V. GElLB.—Yesterday Dr. Addams brought his
argument to • conclusion. The points on which he dwelt
had reference to the charge with which he concluded on the
last court day, and which, he contended, the evidence clearly
and distinctly proved. It was set up, on the other side, that
this pert of the ease was a wilful invention, but all the cir-
cumstances rebutted that assertion. As he understood, the
plea of condonation was alleged, but he denied that there
was any proof of it. Aspersions bad been thrown on the
character of Mrs. Geils out of court, for bringing such a case
before the public—Dr. Harding submitted that his learned
friend bad o right to refer to anything which had taken
piece out of court.—The learned judge complained
that aspersions had also been thrown on the court.
There had been innunetions in the interrogatories
addressed to Mrs. Geils, sea., and to Mrs. Napean. as to
Mr. Geils being buoyed up in the expectation of Otaining •
decision in his favour in consequence of the connexion be-
tween the practitioners engemed for him and the court. The
word, " Of course, most falsely," had been introduced into
the interrogatory in a parenthesis; but he regarded thoso
words as merely ironical. The learned counsel had stated,
in the course of the argument, that the pleas and interro-
gatories had been drawn by himself, without consultation
with the proctor, and he (the learned judge) wished to know
whether Dr. Addams disclaimed what he conceived to be the
imputation contained in the words quoted.—Dr. Addams
said that he was answerable for every word contained in the
interrogatories, aad he should not have closed his case with-
out referring to those just alluded to by the court. The
constitution of this country required that the administrator
of justice should be beyond all suspicion of partiality.
Formerly a judge of amine was not permitted to bold •
commission in his own county, and there the witnesses
were examined vin voce, and there was the guardianship
of a jury. At common law a judge frequently
refused to express his opinion on a case, because
at one time he had been counsel in it —The
learned 'ledge bad not the least objection to constitu-
tional jealousy regarding counsel and parties engaged ho a
cause ; all he complained of was that the objection had not
been brought fairly and openly before the court, but appeared
in the m.•ner to w hich he had referred lathe interrogatories.
The cause was originally brought to this wort by letters of
request.—Dr. Addams considered that it wee a 'ere unfortu-
nate position. If the thing occurred in a single ass it
might not be a grievance, but it perpetually occurred that
he had the same phalanx arrayed against him; it was very
oppressive, and he had borne it till to bear more would be
pusillaeimity ; he had, therefore, brought it out by an inter-
rogatory, which might travel to another tribunal, and on
which he might then make such observations as he thought
it deserved. He (Dr. Addanm)hai now disposed of the whole
ogee, and with respect to which he mustexpress his detesta-
tion and abhorrence. The ease now stood before the court
and the public in its ewe glaring and monstrous character.
Every part of it was proved to a demons ration, and that to
an extent which he never saw in any other CAW He could
not for a moment entertain a doubt that the court must pro-
nounce for the sentence prayed for by Mrs. Geils, and relieve
her from returning to cohabitation with her husband.—Dr.
Curteis, having been heard on the same side, Dr. Jailer
(with whom is Dr. Harding) commenced his addicts to the
court on behalf of Mr. Oeils. If Dr. Addams • had had the
triumphant case which he appeared to' think, how came he
to occupy four entire days in arguing it ? He (Dr. J.) had
never heard a opeeer so replete with abuse as that which
had been addressed to the court. It hod not been
confined to the parties in the cause, and to the
living members of the family, but Colonel Geillaathe
father of Mr. Gelb, had been dragged out of his grave,
and attacks had been made upon the conduct of the
examiner, the learned counsel who was with him (Dr.
Jenner) and himself. The examiner bad been actually se-
lected by the proctor for Mrs. Geils, and then, as a matter of
common courtesy, employed by the proctor for Mr. Geils.
Dr. Addams had complained of the extent to which the
examiner had taken the evidence on behalf of Mr. Geils am
compared with that for Mrs. Geils, but it arose from the
way in which the interrogatories had been drawn by the-
respective parties. Had the evidence for Mr. Gaits on int
terrogatory been taken to ten times the length it had been i
would have excited no surprise in his (Dr. Jenner's) mind.
It had been said that Mrs. Geils, mu., and Mrs. Nepean
had been examined at Ducabuck, but that was a mere mat-
ter of convenience, and was done under the sanction of the
proctor for Mrs. Gels. 'the learned counsel then referred
to a part of the case unfit for publication, after which its
further hearing was adjourned.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Rekord.
IN RI WILLIAY QULNEY.—JUDOILENT.—BILL rli/NS-
ACTIONII.—This bankrupt, who had carried on business as a
;at:worker, under the style or firm of Howard and Co.,
about six weeks since for his certificate, when his
deferred givingjidiment till this day.—His Honour
now amid: I have carer considered all the circumstances
of *Awe, and I feel bound to say that the embarrassments
dale '.krupt must be attributed to his own fault, and not
tto tee of trade or =avoidable misfortune. His
nt was one of the largest of the kind in London.
It to me that tke absence of profits is mainly to be
to that most ruinous of all resources, 'armoire
engage-
menu fa bill transactions many of which were ILC00112:
dent and renewals theriolfrola time tO time. In Apr 2, 1846, 1