The Express.
London, England, 1866-07-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)
DENT AND ANOTHER C. sigma.
This was an action on a marine policy of insurance, and
involved many important points in connexion with mer-
cantile law.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr.
Watkin Williams, and Mr. Butt were counsel for the plain- ,
tiff ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q.C., Sir George
Honeyman, and Mr. Lodge were counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiffs are the well-known firm of East India
and China merchants in the City, and they acted in
reference to the transaction in question as the agents of
the Turkish government, and as such they effected a
policy of insurance with the defendants for the convey-
ance of a quantity of gold to be sent by the Turkish
Ambassador in London to the Turkish Minister at
Constantinople. The gold was forwarded in No-
vember, 1858, and was of the full value of 52,000/.
The portion insured with the defendant was to the
amount of 10,0130/., and he was paid the usual premium of
501. The defendant had pleaded payment into court of
384/. 125..51. as sufficient to meet the plaintiff's claim.
The latter, however, claim I,IOW. The vessel in
which the gold was conveyed was at that time called
the Dutchman, and belonged to Messrs. Malcolm and Co.,
in Ireland, bus before sailing she was transferred to the
Ituasian Steam Navigation Company, and her name was
changed to the Dneiper. She met with severe weather in
the Danleaelles and she stranded at Gallipoli, about 120
miles from Constantinople, on the 4th January, 1859. Her
cargo had to be taken out and landed at Gallipoli.
in the hopes of getting off, but at the end
of 15 Jays she had to be abandoned. Gallipoli, it ap-
peared, was a place where gold was not very secure, and
the Russian consul had to have it guarded night and day,
for which he charged 1,0001., or 2 per wet., being one-half
per cent. less, it was said, than the English consul would
have charged. The use rests on the variety of docu-
ments and the law relating to the question of average,
and his lordship suggested that as the ease would have to
go to the court above on the points of law, whether it
would not be better to at once tarn it into a special ease.
Mr. Bovill said that no doubt that must be so some day
or two hence if not then. It would be utterly impossible
for the jury to understand it, and it would involve a consi-
deration of the English, French, Russian, and Turkish
laws.

It was then arranged that a verdict should be taken for
the plaintiff, subject to a special ease for the court above ;
the court to draw inferences of fact.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Mr. Justice
Byles and a Common Jury.)
. .- . CRI.G/LVI r. I DUNG.

The plaintiff in this case was a tailor and draper, in busi-
ness at Dorking, and the defendant, Mr. Heath Held Young,
was a solicitor in that town. The action was to recover
damages upon the ground that the defendant, when acting
as the plaintiff's solicitor, had been negligent.
Mr. D. Keane, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Party for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been left executor to
Mr. Charles Willoughby, and the will was proved in
January 1860. The defendant became solicitor for the
plaintiff in the matter in January, 1861, and in January,
1864, the plaintiff supplied him with materials for
making out the account+, for duty to be passed at
Somerset-house. Several communications from Somerset-
house were received b 7 the plaintiff, and he handed them
to the defendant, and in the summer of 1863 the defendant
had prepared the accounts, but unfortunately he loot his
bag containing them. He advertised the bag, but never
recovered it, and further delay occurred in consequence of
the defendant's illness. The revenue authorities threatened
process of attachment against the plaintiff for not
pawing the accounts, and on the 18th January,
1866, the defendant wrote to Somerset-house offering
to pay duty upon the whole amount at which the pro-
perty had been sworn at 8004, though the residue would
not be more than 2001. He, however, should not adopt
the proper course of memorialising the commissioners
upon the matter ; and on the 29th January the plaintiff
was arrested upon the attachment, and was taken
to • lock-up house in Blackfriars, where he re-
mained until the afternoon of the next day,
when he was liberated upon the defendant bringing
his discharge. This the defendant had procured by me-
morialising the commissioners and paying duty upon 5601.
at one per cent, and in addition 121. 2e. for costs. This
last sum the defendant paid out of his own pocket.
Mr. Justice Byles, in addressing the jury, said that he
thought that actionable negligence had been provedagainst
the defendant in reference to his not memorialising the
commissioners in January, 1866, and they ought to award
the plaintiff reasonable damages beyond 51. 10a., a sum
which he had said that he was out of pocket by the arrest.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, r5l.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
lIITORTANT I/MINION IN A DILED CABE.

The debtor, a contractor for publicWrie,ll7 executed
a deed of inspection on 27th of February last, and the
same had been duly registered on the 16th of March.
There are no lees than 506 creditors, and the debts are
represented by the enormous figure of 2,540,6671. The
debtor makes affidavit that his property is of the value of
upwards of three millions. The deed has been executed
bj
.creditor, whose debts amount to 2,005,0001., thus
giving the requisite three-fourths in value, and of course a
majority in number, required by the 192nd section of the
Bankruptcy Act of 1861. The validity of the deed was
questioned on two grounds—first, that with regard to
many of the creditors their residences and descriptions
were not given with sufficient particularity, or not given
at all ; and, secondly, that the nature and subject of the
securities held by many of the secured creditors were not
stated with sufficient minuteness. The case was argued at
great length at two former sittings.
Mr. C. E. Lewis on behalf of the dissentient creditors,
asked that the registration of the deed should be vacated
or rescinded, and the certificate of registration recalled.
With regard toneless than2l7 out of thesos creditor, the
Information given in the schedule annexed to the deed was
not in compliance with the rules and orders of the court.
There were eight cases in which the names of the creditors
only were given with no address at all, and upwards of a
hundred where the addresses were imperfect or insufficient,
as " Ashworth, R., Manchester." There were 13 per-
sons of the name of " R. Ashworth" in the " Manchester
Directory.") " Calvert, Manchester" (there were 27 per-
sons of the name of Calvert in the " Manchester Direc-
tory"); " Hutchinson, Manchester," without any Christian
name (there were 64 persons of the name of Hutchinson
in the " Manchester Directory") ; and " Joseph Jones,
Manchester," of whom there were 30 in the Directory.
Notices had been sent by post, as required by the general
ceders, to the dissentient creditors •, but the addresaes were
so imperfect,thatin 25 owe those letters had been returned
to the Dead letter-office, endorsed, " Insufficient
Address ;" ao that those Creditors were without any
knowledge whatever of the existence of such a deed,
by which it was proposed that they should be bound.
To most of those cases the second objection applied ;
the nature and subject of the property held by
the creditors as security was not sufficiently described.
The general order of May, 1862, and the schedule annexed
to it, required that this should be done with the utmost
particularity ; and the following form was given as a
guide :—" Mortgage.—Two freehold houses at Hendon."
In the case before the court there were 96 instances in
which the only particulars given of the security were the two
words, " railway shares," without specifying the railway,
or the number or value of the shares.
Mr. De (:ex (with whom was Mr. Bereeford) argued, in
support of the deed, that the order of May, 1862, was
merely directory, not imperative, and that since the
decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in
She case of " Whittaker v. Law" (New Law Re-
ports, Exchequer, 74) which established that the
value of the security held ought not to be deducted
in calculating the requisite proportion of creditors. it was
'no longer necessary for a debtor to state the several parti-
culars theretofore required by the order of May, 1862. He
also contended that the statute itself having pointed out
seven requisites which must be complied with before a deed
could be registered, it was not competent for the Lord
Chancellor and two commissioners to add an eighth
requisite in the form of a general order. He denied the
power of the court to rescind or cancel a registration where
a deed complied with all the statutory requisites ; such a
coarse would be attended with the greatest inconvenience '
to the inspectors, wbo had incurred obligations, and the
creditors who had acquired rights under the deed. Be-
sides, the dissenting creditors had other remedies.
His Honour now gave judgment. He said that applica-
tion had been made te him to rescind the registration of
of a deed of inspectorship made by one Thomas Sevin.
The case, as far as he was concerned, was one of the first
`impression, and beyond doubt it was the most
important case that had come before the court.
The order of May, 1862, had been made to
remedy the abuser which had crept into the operation of
the deed clauses ; and it was clearly within the compe-
tence of the court, having all the rights, privileges, m-
a:ideate, and power of one of the superior courts, to make
such orders as were necessary for carrying out the
operations of the act. In the present case there had
been a gross violation of that order ; and the ques-
tion env; whether the violation was so material
that it could not beoverlooked ; the materials for testing
the accuracy of the debtor's statement were quite insuffi-
cient ; the order and the form annexed to it were so plain
that a child could scarcely err ; and the unavoidable con-
clusion was that the omission' were wilful, and done to
mislead the dissenting creditors. The registration of the
of the deed muetbecaneelled, but 21 days would be allowed
for the debtor to appeal, should he be so advised.

One of the Methodist ministers at the Boston
Convention, last week, stated that his salary for the first
fear's preaching consisted of a new hat and a bushel of
aPPis. Since then he has been more fortunate, having
received about 25 dell. annually.