The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-05 00:00:00

THE

BRITISM

ac •

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WIIITIONSTIR, heik.
JOIZPI7I n. PIWRZR.
This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Jnedee, at the
Guildhall. London, to recover the amount of certain losses sustained
by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant having deslined to
accept certain shares in the Equitable Loan Stock, which had been
purchased for him by the plaintiff, at his own special instance and
request. The plaintiff was a stockbroker, and haying bought
certain shares in the Equitable Loan Stock for the defendant, who
afterwards refused to take them, the broker experienced a lots by
the prices having subsequently fallen uponyha shares, and the ac-
tion was brought to recover the difference.
An objection was taken at the trial on the part of the defendant,
against the legality of the parties dealing In shares, which carried
interest shove lit e per cent., where the shares were created by a So-
ciety which had not been incorporated by Act of Parliament.
iii, LonDsilip did not nonsuit the plaintiff, but directed a ver-
dict to be given to him, subject to the opinion of the Court upon this
objection.
Mr. Scannell' and Mr. MARRTATT this day argued In sup.
port of the yertliet and against the objection.
Mr. nu a NEY was stopped by the Court from proceeding on the
other side, in favour of the objection and against the verdict.
The LORD CniEr JUSTICE said. he was clearly of opinion
that the dealing in transferable shares in this stock without Charter
or Act of Parliament was illegal, under the 6th of Geo. I. In I
giving this opinion the Court would not shut their eves, and ought
not to be ignorant of what was going on in the world. They knew
that more Stock Companies and transferable shares were dealt in
at this time than at any period since the time of passing the Bth of
Geo. I. Such dealing led to gaming and speculation. Such
gaming and speculation produced the most ruinous consequences.
The gain of one was the loss of another, while in fair commerce
I and trade the buyer and seller were both benefited. Before an Act
of Parliament or a charter incorporated this Company, dealing in
transferable shares was illegal. It was not necessary to say more
respecting the Company.
Justices BAYLEY, lion ROTT, and LITTLEDILI, gave their
opinions at length, coinciding with the Lord Chief Justice.
„His Lordship then took the opportunity of saying, that although
the point was not now before the Court, yet he was of opinion that
the transaction in question was illegal, at common law, because it
was betting and bargaining upon the getting of an Act of Praha-
mtat!--Rule made absolute for a nonsuit.
His Majesty having been empowered by a recent Act of Parlia-
ment to issue his warrant to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench, authorising him to appoint one or more of the
Judges of that Court to hold sittings after Term, for the hearing
and determining of cases that had remained undisposed of during
the preceding Term, the Lord Chief Justice stated, that his Ma-
jesty had, in pursuance of the power thus given him, directed his
warrant to him (the Lord Chief Justice), and that two of the
Judges of this Court would, by virtue thereof, sit in the Chamber
next to the Session Court, Westminster, for the disposal of the
cases to be heard on the 10th, 16th, 17th. and 10th instant. His
Lordship also signified his intention of sitting at Nisi Prins, for
London, on the 21st instant, being the adjournment day; and that
the adjournment day Tor the Sittings for Middlesex was on the
Ilth of April, when his Lordship should sit in the Court where he
was at present presiding.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WtsTxtrysTEß. Fts. 5.

LATNDURY P. DROWN AND CON.
Thiswas an inquisition taken before the Secondary of London,
to assess damages for an assault.
It appeared on the trial, that the plaintiff' and defendants were
carcase butchers, residing nest dror to each other in Vi' hitechapel ;
and it also appeared that they had quarreled, and after some abuse
had passed between the parties the assault took place, both the de-
fendants attacking him at once. A verdict was taken for the plain-
tiff, damages 2001. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan had on a former day
obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted,
on the ground of excessive damages, or the damages reduced.
Mr. Sergeant l'Eat. now rose to oppose the rule, and contended
the damages were not too large.
The COUNT were of opinion, that though the damages might
be excessive. yet as that was a point within the province of the
Jury to decide upon, the Court could not here judge whether the
damages were too large.
Rule discharged.
As the Chief Justice was obliged to attend the Sittings in the
City of London st one o'clock, the Court broke up.
Sittings at Guildhall, London, bt:Pre the Cutts' JUSTICE and a
Common Jury.
WILLIS AND OTHIENS r. OLASIIINGTON.
In this case the plaintiffs were attorneys, and the defendant was
a gentleman connected with the Morning Herald, and part Tiro-
prietor of that Paper. The defendant had applied to them to file
bill in Chancery against Mr. Thwaites, the principal proprietor of
the Meriting Herald. The defendant put into the plaintiffs' hands
a statement of the case, consisting of 500 folios t but the plaintiffs,
seeing the complicated nature of the rase, advised him not to pro-
ceed. This was in 1819. The plaintiffs did not hear again from
the defent sat till 11122, when lie once more called upon them, and
said, that as he had had two opinions of Counsel in his fa-
your, he was determined to proceed. The bill was accordingly
filed on the 16th of November, 1822. In October the defendant
furnished additional statements, which, if they could have been
proved, would hare been of service. The object of the bill was to re-
strain the proprietors of the.iforsingllerale from publishing a paper
called the English Chrtntick, with the types and presses belong.
ing to the Herald. The plaintiffs' bill had been delivered in pro-
per time, and they now brought their action. The original debt was
1113/. 2s. Id., but there was a credit of 301., which reduced it to
lat. 2s. Id.
The defence set up was not that the yolk had not been done, but
that it had been done negligently, and contrary to the defendant's
instructions ; but as there was not a shadow of a proof to that
effect, the Jury immediately founa a verdict for the plaintiffs--
Damages, 1631. 2s. Id.