The Express.
London, England, 1868-04-16 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(TIiLS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

- -
gittiap in Banco— (Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Mellor, Luah, and Hannon.)
THE SEW JUDGE.
Mr Justice Flannel% this morning took the oaths of
mr,MICI and allegiance on his appointment as one of the
judges of this COW*.
ENGELL C. FITCH.

peeth Chief Justice, in delivering judgment in
said it was argued before the late Mr.
jvtice Shoe. Mr. Justice Lush, end himself ;
but in consegoence of the illness and death ef the late Mr.
Justice Slim, whose loss, in common with the whole of
the profession, the court most sincerely lamented and
dreloml, it was impossible, although the judgment was
prepared just before that learned judge's illness, to sub-
mit it for hie consideration ; it must therefore he taken
es the judgment of himself (the Lord Chief Justice) and
ger. Justice Lush. The action was for damages for •
beach of contract in the sale of certain freehold pertY,
iihich the plaintiff recovered damages. Ards was
see: iiiently obtained =damned to enter the verdict for
the defendant. The judgment of the court was that the
Ah should be discharged.
ei,tot r. sAIIITH—THE CIiAMPIONgHIP OF Dig mule&
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine (with whom were Mr. Garth,
Q.t'., and Mr. Tenuent) said this was an 'Mimi tried
before the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, when the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 1501.,
with leave to move to enter the verdict for
the defendant, the editor of the Sportsman, who
was the stakeholder on the occasion in question
The plaint:ff is a waterman, sad he had entered into
articles of agmement to row, for ISM a side and the
Championship of the Thames, with another waterman
named Kelley. The men were to row accord-
ing to the recognised rules of boat racing, and
the referee's decision was to be final. The
terms of the agreement were umed with, and Mr.
Bitfin, who was selected by Under% Minsk, was speed to
by both sides as the referee, and there wee not the
slightest suggestion that there wee anything approach-
leg unfairness in his appointment or in his con-
duct. The race was rowed according to appoint-
ment until the boats fouled, and the referee deciding
there were faults on both sides, directed the race to be
rowed on the following day. On that day both men ap.
peered at the appointed time and place. Ths defendantcon-
tended that the plaintiff never intended to • siert, but the
jury decided he had. It was essential that the race
should be rowed within very narrow limits on amount of
the -tate of the tide. Some 20 minutes or half an hour
Owed, in which there were many false starts, and ulti-
mately the referee came to the conclusion that the plain-
ts did not intend t, stark but that he was shamming,
cad be directed Kelley to row over the course.
The Lord Chief Justice—He directed Kelley to first tell
Sadler what he was going to do.
Mr. tierjeant Ballantine said the referee undertook to
give orders that Kelley should row over the course.
The Lord Chief Justice—There I differ from you, and
that is the weakness of your case. The only ground, it
appeared to me, on which you could possibly move, or have
any ground for contending yon were entitled to the ver-
dict. was the order which the referee gave in award.
in' you the stakes. The fact was that Kelley thought
Sadler did not intend to start and there were certain
circumstances which fairly he thought might lead to that
Inference, though the jury found that Sadler did intend to
start. That may be more or less open to question. Kelley,
however, believing that Sadler dui not intend to start,
went to the umpire's boat and told him he could not get
Sadler to start, upon which the umpire told him if Sadler
would not start he was to start without him. Kelley
went back, and at • considerable distance from Sadler
shouted that he was going to row over the course by the
order of the referee, but without informing him the
terms in which the order was made, or giving him
an opportunity of coming up and starting if be had been so
Inclined. When Kelley wu within fifty or sixty yards of
Sadler be turned round and rowed over the course, Sadler
mothering the slightestnotion of what was going on. Kelley
having started, some one communicated to Sadler, but the
men being so equally matched, it was useless for Sadler to
follow with such • disadvantage. Kelley afterwards
claimed the stakes, and, in spite of Sedlsr's pro-
test, the referee, without inquiry, directed that
the Makes should be paid over to Kelley. The
jary in answer to my questions, found that
Kelley did intend to start, and that the referee had no
means by actual observation of forming his judg-
ment that Sadler did not intend to start. And
upon the whole I think the jury found per-
fectly right that the referee's order was not
properly conveyed to Sadler, and that a fair opportunity
was not given to Sadler to tart if hews' so inclined.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said those points were not so
very material, because he moved on the broad ground that
the referee's decision was final,'no matter how he decided,
whether on his own knowledge or on the information
of others, or if he acted without any know-
ledge upon the matter whatever. His decision,
therefore, being final the stakeholder was bound
to hand over the money. Whether it was desirable that
sporting matters of this description should be transferred
from the ordinary tribunals before which they
were decided and occupy a considerable portion
of the time of the superior courts, might have been
* matter some time ago worthy of consideration, but
it was extremely important not to have appeals from the
decisions of referee properly appointed;and who acted bona
Ede. as was admitted on all aides in thin case ; nor was it
at AI desirable.

TLe Lard Chief Justioe said that what be told the jury
ea whatever powers the referee might possess, he
mciit either on his own observation, or being
clutuol with a sort of qasailudicial function, be must
sarcittin by the best means in his power, by hearing both
si•lrs. thr f.Lces of the ease. The referee here had done
bather. And that was the sole question.
M,. :ierjeant Ballantine—And assuming that decision
w.ni buns fide ?

rh Lord Chief Justioe—There was no pretence for say-
so a. this case. The referee had since admitted that he
• s too hasty in deciding.
Mr. serrant liallontine said Mr. Biffen was a very mo-
de.t man, ar.d bad since said that if he was again placed in
a menhir position he should decide differentdy. The
ati..l counsel then argued at considerable length in sup-
pot of his proposition that the decision of the referee by
the terms or the agreement between the men was final,
and th it he might decide without seeing anything that
nah.pited. He might in fact, be enjoyine his lunch below
th- shot. of the time of the race, anddeoide am he pleased
at the end of it without taking evidence.
tie Lord Chief Justine ultimately said (after conferring
16.1) th, other judges)—You may take a rule, but we do
tot hold out much hope of its being made absolute.
M,. •cucant Ballantine—Your lordships, I assure you,
h..• le. conception of the depth of my hopes. (Loud
,;ranted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sat. a,;• in Raneo.—(Before Lord Chief Juetiee &AI, end
Justices Ryles, Keating, end Smith.)
•E%MOUR V. 130131111 AHD OTHER&

11.• aas an action against tie trustees and some other
connected with the Planet Building Society • and
I.rought to recover damages for an Illegal &sires&
At th• trial before Mr. Justice Byles at Kingston, a verdict
vs fotool for the plaintiff for 50/.
Si. robe', now moved for a rule for a new trial and
4:-: I that the building society's officers made out a war-
r..nt to digrain for rent at No. 2, Westoutt-place, and the
*.tiont remained in the broker's hands for a month
m•bout anything being done. At the end of that
t..e he went to No. 2, and finding nobody there
:.cowing that No. 5, as well as No. 2, was
••••rtt•ced to the society, he, of his own authoty,
1:kr,.1 the number, and also the tenant's name inn
the
1.-rraut and levied at No. 5. For this house no rest was
• Mil lordship was inclined to hold that there was no
• •.1, G , that the defendants had originally authorised the
-, but as there was some evidence of subsequent rata-
( •he left the matter to the ury. This evidenoe was that
ad-.00, the secretary to the society, called upon Mr.
:10••••‘, the plaintiff's attorney, after the distress, and said,
• i;icee we withdraw now, what will happen, because
sc •'re ;oh% to sell on Monday ?" and the answer was,
' 4
I' fcu tell on Mondayyou will make the damages heavier,
or
must please yourself whether you
waw or not On the other band, Mr. lilschardson's
• ''Mena was that be stated that ha did not call on behalf
the !ociety, but as a friend of the broker, and his re- ,
min of the conversation was less favourable to the
Plamtiff than that of Mr. Jones. Under these eireum•
.^.te it was submitted that a conversation like that
to could not fix the trustees or the secretary of
I.6(ty with liability.
Mi. liri•lgroau made a similar motion on behalf of Mr.
(•;4••••• the collector of the societ, who was also a &fen-
(Let. y

Patted.

Fyne V. 151/MEV.
The 11sintiff in this case was • lieutenant in • Inussr
tattle. and be was the son of • gentleman who had
rgsind in commercial transactions, and who lived
I*ul:t'vhug, and also in Cadogan-place, Loudon. The
111.1 affairs were in 1864 involved, and he assigned his
ray to the defendant for the benefit of creditors.
:tion in the cause was whether the plaintiff or
t.indant was entided to • box of plate, and at the
'.`fore the Lord Chid Justice at Guildhall • verdict
`.. .uhvtd for the plsintiff for 6301., subject to the
',.t. di .1 the court.
51'' tlellisk 9.C., now moved for • rule to enter • var.
;.
talk &landau,. The evidence was that the bulk
".‘ ,ilste was given to the plaintiff on his coming of age
4,,,P,^1, 1802, by his father, who said that it would be
p..„1",41 to commence housekeeping with should the
"I' 4407. One of the keys was delivered to the
hut it seemed that& daphcate of this key remained
ti fdlier. The box also continued in possession of
• .03tr, and at the time of the deed of assignment it dha hmkors,
who had received no notice of any

the Lord Chiel
so ot. this case. !
• too hasty ill
Mr. S,-rjeant I
do,t lean, esti bs
• ,unitar posit
I .orneol counsel I
pot of his propo
the terms of the
sod tit it he tole
trsh•pited. He t
tho' who`, of the
at la, cool of it s
Ttte Lord Chie
other ;
art Laid out Mil
h... a.. concept
,;ranted.
• COUP
Sc.m;.lo Banco
Judie
;x1.1,, connects"
it • tonight to
At ta. trial helot
as foamd forth)
tit. colieu no
t:-: I that the b
vont to di.train I
r.roant remain,
mthout anytbin
Le he went
t
morta.c•
ed to tl
l!kr.l the num
•-rout and leei
• His lordsh
, that thr
bututh
Fe left the
aol-oa, the
Jos., the plaint
we coil
,re cosine to
It roe sell on
l•
10 you tens"
maw or not." I
o'4lence was tha
the .ociety, bt
tiou of the
lament( than the
tt Ittt, it WAS nu
d'lt'uo-ol to could
It, 1.-key with
Ml. Itriolgmat
the collect
(Let.
Panted.
The thsintiff i
zunent and b
t•at. iidood in
orar 11F`
• aHsin
tty to the
...tion in
tomlant w
-.t ht. fore the I
.ot-red tot
''a••o.4theco
Mr Hellish
for the deft
• wee
'l, Apra, 1n62,
1,1,11.14 to ra
num/
Pr',..!'Llf•but it ;
: tl., father.
r.• .ther and
at h, had,