The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-04 00:00:00

GREME V. BROUGHTON.

The Lord Chief Baron, in giving the judgment of the
Court in this case, said it arose upon a motion for. a new
trial upon the ground that the plea set up was proved
by admissions given in evidence. The action was
brought upon a bond or condition for the payment of a

um of money. The foundation of the transaction was
that the plaintiff, being a major in a regiment in the
East India Company's service, agreed to relinquish his
position or situation in the regiment (but be was to con-
tinue major in the army generally), by which means the
j-unior officers in the regiment would attain a step higher
in promotion, and these gentlemen agreed to give him a
certain sum of money as a consideration for so doing,
the defendant undertaking to secure it to him
by bond. When, however, the bond was asked
for, the defendant pleaded the transaction pretty
much as he (the Chief Baron) had stated
it, and contended that the agreement on his part was
illegal, and that he was not bound to pay the money.
At the trial the admissions were put in, and the learned
judge, who presided, thought these admissions did not
prove the plea, and some doubt was entertained by him
that, supposing they did, the plea itself was no answer
to the action. There had been a demurrer to the plea as
a traverse. The learned judge thought the plea not
proved, upon which an application was made to the
court for a new trial, and a demurrer was entered, and
both came before the court last Wednesday. The plea
professed to be founded upon the East India Company's
Act, but it did not make mention of the 49th Geo. HI.,
c. 126, by which, generally, the sale of all offices was
prohibited, with some few exceptions, and by which
also the resignation of an office for a pecuniary consi-
deration was rendered illegal. The court had con-
sidered the case, and were all of opinion that the trans-
action was illegal, as stated in the plea, and so far the
plea was an answer to the action, but there must be a new
trial for the purpose of enabling the defendant to take the
opinion of the jury as to whether the plea was proved
or not. Assuming, however, the plea to be proved, the
Court were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled
to recover, and that the defendant was entitled to judg-
ment on what came before them on the demurrer. It
appeared to him that this transaction was nothing more
nor less than giving to a person who held a situation
under the India Company a pecuniary consideration to
leave the service, or to resign his position. The major
of a regiment was in a different position from a mere
major in the army unattached, and although it was con-
tended that this giving up of his majority did not alter
his position at all, it seemed to the Court to be a great
mistake. The plaintiff undertook to relinquish his ma-
jority in the regiment, and in his (the Chief Baron's)
opinion, the pecuniary consideration tendered a promise
to him for that purpose was illegal--he thought it was
a resignation within the meaning of the Act of Parlia-
ment which pronounced it to be illegal. The
Lord Chief Baron having pointed out the mischief
which would arise in the public service if these
transactions were permissible by law, cited several cases
bearing upon the question before the Court, and in con-
clusion said that under the circumstances he had men-
tioned, the judgment of the Court upon the demurrer
would be for the defendant, and in regard to the appli-
cation for a new trial the rule must be made absolute.
Judgment accordingly.
Mr. Baron Parke sat at Nisi Prius front this court in
the Lords' Justices Room, and proceeded to take a
partly-heard case, Price v. Richards, involving an action
upon a disputed' engineer's account, and it was expected
to occupy the whole of the day.