The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-05 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

HULLS V.-1,1172-CAN A COUNTRY ATTORNEY RECOVER
• BILL OP COSTS ronWong DONE BY 1118 TOWN AGENTS
IN A COURT IN WHICH HE IS NOT ADMITTED AND EN-
ROLLED, THOUGH 1118 AGENTS ARE ?—This was an action
for the amount of an attorney's bill. The defendant pleaded
that the work and labour for which the action was brought
had been done and performed in a cause in the Court of Ex.
chequer, by the plaintiff's agents, who were admitted attar-
ides of that court, but that the plaintiff himself was an attor-
ney of the Court of Queen's Bench, and not an attorney of
the Court of Exchequer. To this plea the plaintiff demurred.
Mr. Hayes, in support of the demurrer, contended that the
disability to recover costa imposed by the 6th and 7th Viet.,
e. 73, was directed against those persons only who were ab-
solutely unqualified for practising as attorneys, and did not
apply to those whose want of qualification was the effect of
an omission easily cured without any new probation, or
any acquisition of qualities not ceremonial merely. Mr.
Serjeant Dowling, in support of the plea, insisted that,
so far as the claim related to services actually rendered
in a particular court, admission and enrolment in that court
were a condition precedent of the power to render services
that would support an action such as the present. The court
took time to consider the judgment —lt was understood that
the defence was raised by agreement, in order that the ques-
tion raised thereby might be determined.
THE CORK AND BANDON RAILWAY COMPANY O. CAzE-
NOVE.—INFANCY 18 NOT • GOOD PLEA TO A DECLARA-
TION IN THE STATUTORY FORM POE CALLS ON SHARER IN
A RAILWAY COMPANY REGULATED HY AN ACT WHICH IN-
CORPORATES THE PROTIBIoNSOP THE COMPANIES' CLAUSES
Ace, 8& 9 Vier., c. 16.—Tbis was an action for calls on
shares in the Cork and Bandon Railway Company. The
declaration was in the statutory form, given by the Compa-
nies' Clauses Act, which is incorporated in the act that re-
gulates the company, against the defendant es holder, and
contained seven counts, each relating to a particular call.
The defendant, as to the first three counts, and the calls to
which they related, pleaded that each of them became due
while he was an infant under the age of 21 years ; and u to
the remaining counts and calls, that the action was brought
against him as the registered holder of the share', that when
he became the registered holder he was an infant, and that
since he had come of age he had not registered anew nor
done any act to confirm and ratify the previous regis-
tration. To these pleas there was a demurrer
which was supported by Sir John Bayley. Mr.
Crompton argued for the sufficiency of the plea.—The court
did not think it necessary to hear a reply.—Lord Denman
said that the statute made the registered shareholder liable.
The defendant woo the registered shareholder. He now said
that he was an infant when he became the registered holder.
That was no answer at all. If the circumstances under which
he became holder involved a contract which be could not in
law have made; or if there had been any subsequent repu-
diation, the facto should have been specially pleaded ; but as
the statute contemplated the bolding by infanta, the mere
plea of infancy was not sufficient. With regard to the calls
subsequent to the defendant's having come of age, hie ac-
quiesence hod set up the whole transaction.—Mr. Justice
Patteson said, that the general rule in favor of infants could
not now be the subject of doubt. The question was confined
to the effect of this act of parliament which made the holder
liable for calls on shares held by him. Then, who might
hold ? A minor might hold, for the 79th section enabled his
guardian to vote for him.- -Mr. Justice Calrrilge was of the
same opinion. This action was not brought while the holder
was an infant. Mr. Justice Erle was of the same opinion.
The defendant's pleas disclosed the fact that after he had
come of age be had permitted his name to remain on the
register ; and that permission was a ratification of the pre-
vious acquisition of the shares for him. Judgment for the
plaintiff.
Nun Pairs AA GIJII.DZALL.—Before Mr. Justice Wiettman.
DAY O. EDWARDS.—NON-LIABILITY OP A PAWNBROKER
POE AN INJURY DONE TO THE PURCHASER OP A
VEBBEL CONTAINING POISON.—Mr. Miller and Mr. Pol-
lock were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Lush
for the defendant. The plaintiff, who sued by her next
friend, was the daughter of a person who kept the White
Bear, in Britannia-street, City-road, and the defendant was
a pawnbroker at Holton. The father of the plaintiff pur-
chased the duplicate of a cruet-stand, which had been
pledged with the defendant, and when it was taken home,
the plaintiff, a child three years old took up one of the
bottles, which contained a white liquid, and drank some of
it. It proved to be oil of vitriol, and had seriously injured
her both at the time and in her general health. An action
was brought against the defendant for the injury, and 1001.
damages recovered. A new trial was moved for, and the
court granted it on the ground that " this was a serious neglect
of duty; and the person making the charge should prove it,
but there could be no duty on the part of the defendant to
caution any person against the poison, antes' he knew it was
contained in the bottle." Evidence was now called to show
that when the cruet-stand was pledged, there was nothing
in the bottles, and that it was delivered to the purchaser in
the same state. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff
must be non-suited, as the allegation in the declaration that
the defendant had put the poison into the bottle was nega-
tived. The learnedjudge, however, thought that the case
should go to the jury.—After the address of the learned
counsel for the defence, Mr. Justice Wigbtman told the jury
that even supposing that the poison had been put into the
bottle by one of the defendant's servants, he was not liable
for the act, as it seal not within his knowledge.—Verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banlo.
BASTRRFIRLD.—LANDLORD NOT RI

RICH O.

FOIL NUISANCE CHEATED BY THE TENANT.-JCUOILENT.-
This was an action for a nuisance. The declaration stated
that the plaintiff was possessed of certain premises in the
New-road, and that the defendant had built in front of the
said premises two shops with chimneys, the smoke from
which mused considerable annoyance to the plaintiff, and
rendered his messuage unhealthy. The pleas were " not
guilt," and "not possessed." The cue was tried before
Mr. Justice Erle, at the sittings in Middlesex, after Hilary
term, 1846, when it appeared in evidence that the defendant
having created the shops and stoves in front of the plaintiff's
house, let them to certain persons, by whom the fires were
made. A former occupier stated that he used coke on
the same premiss, and that no annoyance resulted therefrom ;
whereas it appeared that the present occupier used a descrip-
tion of fuel which caused a great deal of smoke. It was
contended for the defendant, that he was entitled to a ver-
dict on both issues, as the lighting of the fires in question
was not his own act, and u the tenant to whom he had let
the premise, was in possession at the time. The learned
judge left it to the jury to say whether er not the defendant
had made a reasonable use of his right to build, and in a
reasonable place. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages,
40s. A rule nisi having been obtained to show cause why
the verdict should not be entered for the defendant, the
case was argued in Trinity term last, when various cafes
were cited in support of the rule. It wu contended for the
plaintiff that, the landlord having built the chimneys in
order that smoke might imue, was responsible for the con-
sequences complained of ; that he had let kis premises with
the nuisance upon them, and was therefore liable for such
nuisance. On the other hand it was valid that the land-
lord was not liable, as the fires were made by his tenants,
and not by his servant or agent, and insomuch as he was
not in passonion at the time the fires were so lighted. Such
(continued Mr. J natio. Creswell, in delivering the judgment)
wunowthe opinionof the court. The plaintiff had no ground
of complaint against the defendant. The latter did not let
the premises with any existing nuisance upon them; nor did
it appear that there was any contract for the tenants to light
fires of any kind. It was quite optional with them to make
fires or not ; or they might have made them by means of
coke, instead of wood or coal; or abstained from fires alto-
gether when the wind blew in the direction of the plaintiff's
windows. The tenants were not the agents of the de-
fendant, and the utmost that could be said of them
wu that they might make fires if they pleased.
, The principle laid down by Mr. Justice Littledale in the case
of " Laugher v. Poynter (5 Barsewell and Creswell, 647),
and adopted by the Court of Exchequer in " Quarman v.
Burnett' (6 Meeson and Welaby, 499), was that a man ought
not to let his land or other property with a nuisance attached to
it:; and he was bound to take care that no nuisance existed at
the time of letting. The court were of opinion that this
ruling was correct, and was applicable to the present ease.
It was not the building itself, but the user of it, which con-
stituted the nuisance t and the court, therefore, thoughtthat
if a landlord let premises not of themselves a nuisance, but
which may or may not become a nuisance through the acts
of the tenant, the landlord cannot be made responsible. To
decide otherwise would be going beyond the principles of
justice recognised in any:of the cases bearing upon the sub.
ject On these grounds the verdict most be entered for the
defendant on the plea of not guilty, and also on the none of
not possessed.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.
The court Nit on Saturday morning to givejudgments only.
Coon E v. BLAIIL—The question in this case was, how
the issues ought to have been found. Mr. Baron Parke now
intimated that, in the opinion of the court the verdict ought
to be for the defendant on the two last issues, and for the
plaintiff on the others.
WALLIO v. Swrxnuanz.--In this case the rule to enter
a nousult was ordered to be diesharged.
Arroatax-Oanzasx V. Hsxxrrx.—The point in this
cue was, as to the exclusive right of the Crown to exercise
certain privileges in respect of land in Waltham Forest.
Mr. Baron Parke said the court were of opinion that there
was not sufficient evidence to establish the right, and, there.
foie, judgment must be for the defendant.

11•11R18 AND ANOTHER O. GUISS6I.L.—The question in
dispute here was, whether a certain weir was of the
stipulated height, and also like the model.—Mr. Baron
Parke gave it as the opinion of the court, that there must
be a new trial in this case.—Rule absolute, therefore, for a
new trial.
W•azmy, Esq., M.P., tr. COMM.—An action had bean
brought, and a verdict with damages obtained the plaintiff,
for alibel which bad been published in the Medical
The defendant, In a report of that trial, also re-published the
libel. A second action was brought for that re-publication,
and another verdict gained, with 1501. damages. The
defendant soug to set that verdict aside, en the ground of a
misdirectionthe Lord Chief Baron.—Mr. Baron Rolfe
said there had been no misdirection, and therefore the court
gave it u their opinion that the rule fora new trial must be
discharged.
Weinman r. Kvxissu.—Mr. Baron Rolfe said, the judg-
ment of the court in this case was, that there should be a
new trial. The rule, therefore, would be absolute.
CLARY O. CHAPLIN.—MT. BUM Platt said this was an
action instituted by a person in his character as an allottee
for the recovery of money which he had paid as a depoait on
shares in a certain company (not a railway). The jury gave
a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed ;
but in the progress of the trial leave was given to the de-
fendant to move to enter a nozuruit, upon the ground that
the plaintiff bad failed to put in evidence the letter of allot-
ment—evidence which it was contended was most material.
Application was in due course made for the rule, and the
argument on showing cause having terminated, the court had
taken time to consider the point. The court bad well con-
sidered the matter, and the result of their deliberation wm,
that evidence ought to be given, either by the production of
the letter itself, or of its contents, in order that the jury
might be able to ascertain the astute and effect of the con-
tract. Under this state of things, the court thought it better
to allow the plaintiff to have a new trial on his paying the
costs of that proceeding ; or, in the event of his not adopting
that alternative, then that the rule to enter a commit should
be made absolute.
BATLIFEE r. BCOLLAND.—Mr. Baron Platt in this case
said the rule to set aside the judgment must be made
absolute.
RAMAT O. CROW.—Mr. Baron Platt, in reference to this
case, intimated that the court considered that the defendant
was entitled to judgment on the demurrer.—Judgment for
the defendant accordingly.
The court then stated that there were some other cases in
which they were not at present prepared to give judgment,
but that they would sit on Thursday nest to give them.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Conviuse.' toner Croulburn.
IN as J. T. CIROVES.—AN VNPORTUNATE
This bankrupt came up on the balance-sheet prepared by
Mr. Wryghte, the well-known accountant, to pan his last
examination. It appeared that the bankrupt's debts
amounted to about 4,0001., and the assets to about 3,0001.
He had formerly been in partnership, and upon going out
had a surplus of 3,3001., after paying all debts, u his share
of the business, with which be commenced trade, by build-
ing an oil-mill at Southampton. There was a eawpit with •
thatched roof adjoining these premises, and it caught fire by
lightning. The palings round the bankrupt's building,
which coat him 4,0001., ignited, and in a very short space of
time the mill was one masa of fire, and in an equally short
space of time was nearly all consumed, and he was not in-
sunset, being at the very time in the act of making estimates
for that purpose. He was also possessed of a cargo, valued
1,0001., on board the Albion, constant trader from London
to Southampton, which war totally loot in February, 1847,
none of the crew ever being heard of. This cargo was not
insured. In oenaequenoe of these unfortunate circumstances
the bankruptcy took place.—Mr. Tilson, for the assignees,
having complimented the bankrupt upon the small amount
of his expenditure, his Honour said that Mr. Groves came
here entirely from misfortune, and it was gratifying to see
what a good estate there war, and no doubt he would be
respected by all the creditors. He would resume business
with great honour to himself. It was very gratifying (con-
tinued his Honour) to see how very ready English creditors
were to eympathise with the misfortunes of en honest but
unfortunate bankrupt, an witnessed in the present ease.—
The bankrupt then pared his last examination, a day being
named for the certite.