The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 22, 1864.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant and a Tury).

- .
THE LAW OF LIAFITITY -SINGUL Alt AND IMPORTANT

CASE-NORMAN V. EWINS.

This was an action to recover £34 4s 4d for goods sold
and delivered, and defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr Henry James (instructed by Mr Lloyd) appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr S. Joyce (instructed by Mr Voules) re-
presenting defendant. The court was crowded by a number
of persons interested in the result of the proceedings, a
large sum of money being at stake.
Mr James having bri tly opened the case, called a wit-
ness in the service of tho plaintiff, who deposed that he re-
ceived an order from S. D. Ewins and Co., Ave Maria-
lane, and had satisfactory references to well-known thins.
Cross-ox-truined—l have not seen a Mr Hughes, but
heard that a number of persons have signed a composition
deed.

Mr Stevens said he bad been to Ave Maria-lane. Saw
the title S. D. Ewins and Co. over the door, and Ewin and
Hughes on the side post.
Mr Crowther (in the absence, of Mead and Powell), de-
posed that he had nev.r received a circular notifying that
Mr Ewins had retired from the firm, nor did defendant
mention to witness that he had done so.

Cross-examined—l had a conversation with klr Powell,
in presence of defendant, and said I was to be called to
prove that he was a partner. Mr Powell made the remark,
" I thought you told me he ;was not in the firm." Other
witnesses deposed to the name being over the door, and to
the general belief that Mr E wins was a partner,
Mr Joyce, on the part of defendant, called his client, who
said—l had carried on business for many years as a,whole-
sale stationer at Ave Maria-lane, Hughes is my son-in-law.
I left the business in 1862, and Ilaghee took it. My name
was over the door. I had a circular printed when I left,
but Ido not rememb2r sending it out. My boy delivered
it to my customers. I have not had one shilling out of the
business since I left, and I objected to my name being up.
If Hughes was successful I was to have £2 per week out of
the business. I never authorised him to receipt a bill of
exchange in my name.

Cross-examined—l did not take my name down, because
I did not think there was any harm in leaving it up. All
customers knew I had left the business.

Defendant's son did not remember leaving any circulars,
Mr llughes Leek the LuArtess Iu 186. INly
father-in-law never interfered. I have been unfortunate,
and a number of my creditors have signed a deed of com-
position.

Cress-examined—Everybody I bought of knew the busi •
ness was mine only. Although my father-in-law has ob-
jected to my using his name, I havo accepted bills with the
name of " S. D. Ewins and C 0.," and kept that name upon
the door.

Mr James—But there was Ewins and Hughes at the
side. Who was the Ewins, and who was the Hughes ?
Witness—l was both. (Laughter.)

Mr Joyce then urged that on this evidence defendant
was not liable. A ran could not be made 'gable because
his name was kept over his door against his will.
Mr James insisted that defendant was liable if he allowed
his name to be used in the manner described. No man
had a right to use the name of another against his will, and
if defendant allowed Hughes to do it he must take the eon-
sequences.

His Lordship, in summing up to the jury, said the first
question was who was trusted by the plaintiff, and in look-
ing at this point they must also consider the mode in which
the credit had been given. If thejury thought that defend.
ant had allowed his name to be used in euch a manner as to
induce the creditors to believe him to be a partner, then he
was liabls. If he did not, and the name had only been kept
up over the door as that of an old established firm, the
customers knowing that he was not in it, then the verdict
would be for defendant.

The Jury, after a brief consultation, found for tho

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

(Before Mr Commissioner Winslow as Commissioner.)

IN RE LLOYD.-JUDGMENT.

This bankrupt was described as a captain In the army,
residing at Pimlico and at St Pancras, and applied for his
release from custody.
The bankrupt had obtained his order of discharge, but
was b till detained in custody at the suit of Mr Jones, teilor,
Regent-street, for costs in an action, and for the detaining
creditor it was contended that the order of discharge did not
operate as a return against the creditors' present claim,
which was for costs in an action, judgment not having been
obtained until after the adjudication in bankruptcy, and the
creditor had only been admitted to prove for the amount of
the debt.

His Honour now gave judgment, deciding that the order
of discharge absolved the bankrupt from the costs, as well
as the debt, for which the action had been brought,

The order of release was thert tire isEued.

IN RI2 LASTCOTT.

This bankrupt was described as a mine proprietor, and
had been a director of several mining companies, late of
King's-road, B ill's-pond-road, and he now applied for his
release from custody. Tho debts amount to £1,102, and
no assets, the bankrupt applying in forma pauperis,