The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-FrEt. 2.

Sittings A Nisi Priem at Westminster.-{Before Mr.
Justice Blackburn and Common Juries.)
FA O. HAMEL

This action was brought npota written agreement by the
plaintiff, William H. Bellew Pain, an attorney, to reamer
about 1,400 i. for taking a •oyage to Australia, to obtain
pimpsof property which been left by the do.
eadmit's half•brother, who died in that colony in 1844.
Mr. Berjeant Pigott and Mr. O'Grady were for the plain-
tiff ,• and Mr. Huddliston and Mr. Dowdeawell for the dr
fondant.

It appeared from the plaintiff', case that the defendant,
Mies Haynes, who was a female in humble circumstances,
earning her living as a silk winder at Bethnal-greaa,
having beard from a person from Australia that her relative
had left a large amount of property, variously estimated
from 9,0001. to 100001., called upon the plaintiff in 1857 to
consult him with regard to its recovery. Ultimately
the agreement in question was entered into, and
la accordance with lie terms he went out to Australia,
and remained there for • considerable time. The
defence was that the agreement was obtained by false
and fraudulent representations. The defendant was an illi-
terate person, and the negotiations with the plaintiff were
carried on by her brother and another on her behalf,
and it was alleged that the plaintiff, anxious, for pri-
vate reasons, to go to Amami* nn y represented to
them that it would be rash and improvident to send out a
power of attorney, as there was no agent in the colony who
could be trusted, and suggested that be himself should
take the voyage. The defendant said that it was upon this
statement she was induced to enter into the agreement. It
appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had received
aiW" . from Mr. Gilbert, an attorney, in Australia, on ac-
count of the property, and the defendant oontended that
this was amply sufficient to cover all the expenses he had
iocurred.

The learned Judge, in summing up, rid the principal
question was whether there was fraud so as to vitiate the
:Lnset, which had clearly been entered into between
mp:ties. If the jury thought that the plebs-
tire statement that no one in Australia could
be safely entrusted with the work, under a power
of attorney, was wilfully false, and that it induced the
defendant to enter into the agreement, it would amount to
fraud, and the defendant would be entitled to their verdict.
The strongest piece of evidence against the plaintiff, his
lordship said, to his mind, was this : that when he awns
to draw out the agreement he, apparently from • comieious.
new of the dubious nature of the transaction, ineerted
wends to the effect that the rid Elisabeth Haynes had
reason to think that, under the circumstances and from the
advice and experience of many gentlemen in conversation
with them, by sending • power of attorney or other
instrument to any party in South Australia she would not
obtain the whole of the property.
The jury, after • brief absence from court, gave • verdict
for the defendant, boding that the plaintiff was guilty of
fraud, and that all his expenditure was covered by the
money he had received in Australia.
Verdict for defendant.
=TOLL'S e. LAWRENC/L —HOUR CARL

This was an action fora breech of warranty, stating that
a bores was fit to oany a lady.
Mr. O'Malley and Mi. D. Keane appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Serjeeat Ballantine for the defendant.
The plaintiff WY Mr. Metcalfe, • gentleman of the bar,
and the defendant, • horse dealer at Brighton. In Novem-
ber last Mr. Metcalfe was staying with his wife, at Brighton,
and when out with the Southdown hounds he saw the de-
fendant with a showy-looking bay mare, and knowing who
he was he spoke to him about her. The moult was that the
plaintiff called at the defeodant's stables neat day, and
being armed that the inapt was perfectly quiet
and imitable for a lady to ride upon, he greed
to porchaee her for 1001., intending her for the
use of Mrs. Metcalfe. The horse was duly delivered,
and Mrs. Metcalfe, in the absence of her husband, who ass
is London, gave a cheque to the defendant for the amount,
but only took a receipt, forgetting to ask for the ordinary
warranty. The plaintiff afterwards rode the mare and
found she had a vicious temper, and was perfectly mime-
aLeab:taiotiff dated that when he went out with the
animal he became a show to the people of Brighton, as she
reared, threw herself on the ground, and performed other
dangerous gyrations. Thedefendant refusing to take back the
mere, she was resold at Tattersall's for 33 guineas, the net
proceeds being 301. te., and the plaintiff sought to recover
the difference between that sum and the 1001.
The defence was that no warranty wee given with the
hone, and that until ill-used by the plaintiff's groom she
was quiet, and free from vice.
As in most cases of this description, the evidence was
very conflicting.
The jury, after an absence from court of about two hours,
found a verdict for the plaintiff damages 151.