The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-05 00:00:00

ROIIIIICS V. 811011 T.

Mr. Atherton, Q.C., moved that the plaintiff should
have liberty to enter the verdict on the second plea in
his favour that bad been returned by the jury for the de-
fendant. The action was tried at the last Liverpool
assizes, before Mr. Justice Crowder, and was for goods
bargained and sold under the following circumstances :
—The parties were rag merchants, and in dealing for a
quantity of rags a discussion arose as to the price of certain
rags supplied on a former occasion whether the price was
is. 9d. or 6s. per cwt.—the plaintiff contending it was
Cs., the defendant ss. 9d. It was arranged the question
should be decided by a wager, the loser paying for a
quart of brandy ; and further that, if the plaintiff were
right, the plaintiff should pay 6s. per cwt. for the rags
then sold, but if wrong the defendant should have them
for 3s. per cwt. It afterwards appeared the plaintiff was
right, and the defendant paid for the brandy, but refused
to take rags at 83., at which they were invoiced, where-
upoa the action was brought. The defendant pleaded first
non-indebted, and secondly, a special plea that the con-
tract depended on a wager, and could therefore not be
enforced. The jury found for the plaintiff on the first
plea, and for the defendant on the second ; the learned judge
who tried the case reserving to the plaintiff leave to move.
The learned counsel submitted that the defendent had not
proved his plea, and also that if he had it was of no
effect, for there was a complete bargain and sale, and the
wager was a matter collateral to the contract for the
breach of which the action had been brought.
The court granted a rule nisi.
THE ODESSA CHARTERS.--AVERY V. BOWDEN.

Mr. Watson, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in the case for the plaintiff should not
be set aside and entered for the defendant, and also for
a new trial. The action was tried at the last Guildhall
sittings before Lord Campbell, and was for a breach of
contract arising from the declaration of war between
this country and Russia. In this case there were two
separate charges of breaches of two charters involving
different questions. The plaintiff was a shipowner of
Shield', and the defendant a merchant at Hull, and the
first charter was that the Rolla should proceed to Fal-
mouth or Queenstawn, there receive her orders and then
proceed to Constantinople, and from thence to Odessa,
or as near as she could get there, and load a cargo of
either tallow, wheat, seed, or other gaain, with which
she should return to any port in the United Kingdom.
The clause in the charter on which the question turned
was this :—" It is, further agreed, that in case of war
having commenced previously to and continuing on the
ship's arrival at Constantinople, the defendant was
bound to load the ship there at 10s. per ton less than if
loaded at Odessa." After the sailing of the •essel war
was declared between Great Britain and Russia, and the
question was the meaning of the word " war" in the
charter party, in connection with the date of its decla-
ration and being known at Constantinople.
Mr. Justice Wightman said that must be taken to be
such a war as would prevent the ship taking in her

oargo,
Mr. Watson said the 7second charter was that of the
Lebanon. The same term was in the charter party, but
she was to load at Odessa. She arrived there but did
not load, and a question arose here in addition to the
term of the charter party relative to the war, whether a
dispensation had been given to the captain, and which
the jury confirmed on the trial. He was now in posses-
sion of letters from the captain, dated 3d and 4th
of April, after the declaration of war was known
at ( idessa, making no mention of a dispensation, but in
reality asking for one. In addition to that the Emperor
of Russia published an ukase on the 3d March prohibit-
ing the exportation of grain at Odessa.
Lord Campbell said it was an important question, and
the learned couasel could take a rule generally.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER•
TYRZB V. RITSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages of the plaintiff for loss sustained in leakage,
&c., of a quantity of beer forwarded by them in the de-
fendant's vessel, from London to Liverpool, arising from
bad etawage.
The action was originally tried at Liverpool, and was
for the plaintiff, the learned judge allowing the defendan
to move to bet aside the verdict.

Mr. E. James, Q.C., moved for a rule calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause wby the verdict should not be set
aside and entered for the defendant.
Rule refused.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
MORGAN V. LORD CLINTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
61. Is. of the noble defendant. It appeared from the
evidence that the defendant was a shareholder in the
Grange Silver sad Lead Mining Company, Aherystwith.
The real question was to establish the noble lord's lia-
bility. The company was established in 1849, when the
defendant became a shareholder, the understanding be-
ing that the mine should be worked on the cost-book
principle.
The jury had not returned their verdict when we went
to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE--{This Day.)

MARY LEBONE.

WIRE BEATING.—A fellow named Ournuy was this
morning brought before Mr. Broughton, charged with
violently assaulting his wife, to whom he had been
married 29 years. He was ordered to attend on a future
day, to enable a material witness to attend and give
evidence against him.