The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 19.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in London, in Hilary Term,
before Mr. Justice TALFOURD and Common Juries.)

HODGKINSON V. WRIGHT.

This was an action to recover payment of a promissory
noto for 3861., dated 4th of October last, and payable
two months after date, granted by the defendants to the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded,, that the promissory
note was granted for 386 shares in the Worthing
Mining Company, and that only a portion of them had
been delivered; and, second, that he did not promise.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Needham were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Charnock
for the defendant. _ _

It appeared that, on the 4th of October last, the plain-
tiff, Sir George Edmund Hodgkinson, who is a ship and
insurance broker, sold to the defendant, the Rev. George
Wright, a clergyman of the Church of England, 386
shares in the Worthing Mining Company, at 1/. per
share, payable by bill at two months, all calls up to that
the shares to remain in the names they
time being paid,
then were until the bill was paid. The defendant being
unwilling to have his name appear on a bill, gave
the plaintiff his cheque for the amount, on
the understanding that he was not to use it
until such time as the bill would have been payable. The
plaintiff, however, on consulting his solicitor, was advised
not to take the cheque, but to insist on the original
agreement, and have a bill at two months. After some
meetings between the solicitors of the parties, a bill for
the amount was OM by the defendant, at two mouths,
on e the
s , on tho understanding, as he al-
leged,to be kept as a security for
that the shares were to be
t h tt :h ;e that
th
until
i oft
was Opcat
merely
October,
n d
given over to the defendant within a reasonable time
after ho purchased them from the plaintiff. Acting on
defendant sold the whole of the
ttift, a sharebroker, at 1, Royal Ex-
change-buildings, at 1/. Is. 6d. per share, except 80 of
them,hhl
1/. 2s. 6d. for; but the plaintiff, con
u-
agreement to mean that he was not called
sst
uponrias r€ 3 understanding,
wt
g ohothandihctebh Mr.o
o
ver the shares to the defendant until the
7th December, when the bill became payable, refused to
let him have them, with the exception of 100, upon
which the calls up to the 4th of October were paid,
the calls up to that period not having been paid on
defendant, therefore, now con-
tendedat being, as ho conceived, entitled to
on the 4th of October last, that as on several
we
The
reasonable time after be bad pur-
e
had offered to take them and pay the agreed
tootheoccasions
pastlser
hoiidocta others.
rhees
corstrhsf them after that period, that as he gave the
bill on the express understanding that he was not to be
kept out of the shares until it should become due, and as
the plaintiff was not in a position to transfer the shares
to him, not having paid up the calls on them, he was not
now liable. to beealled upon for the amount contained in
the bill.
The issue from the form of the proceedings lying
upon the defendant, he was examined in support of his
plea, and stated the circumstances under which he pur-
chased the shares
; that he considered himself entitled
to them within a reasonable time after the bargain, and
in consequence of that sold them ; that he never autho-
rised his attorney to give his bill for them on the un-
derstanding that they were not to be handed over until
the bill was due; and that he had got into considerable
difficulty in consequence of having sold them, and the
plaintiff declining to transfer them until the 7th Decem-
ber, oue party demanding of him 501. as a recompense
for his failure to the shares sold him forthcoming.
The agreement between the parties was also put in,
whiten. was to the effect, that the Rev. Geer3o Wright
arr,•ed to Purchase of the plaintiff 386 shares of the
Worthieg Mining Company--all claims up to that time
Amid—payable b bill at two months, the shares to remain
in their present names until payment of the bill. y
It was contended 011 the part of the plaintiff that the
.harps were not to ho transfery d until Dec. 7, when the
bill granted for them became due, and that when it did
so become duo the plaintiff sent ore of his clients to the
defentlant to apprise him of it, and to hand him over the
shores. The calls en the whole of the shores were paid
up two days before the bill became due, and the defen-
dant had 100 of there before, which the plaintiff gave
him as a favour, he having
sold out to that amount.
The plaintiff and his attorney. were examined in sup.
port of the claim, the latter statieg that the defendant's
solicitor, when h© gave the bill for the shares, was con-
vinced that they would not be transferable until the 7th
of December.
Mr. Justice TALTOURD then went over the evidence,
and the jury, after retiring for a short time, gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for 286/., the balance of the bill,
after deducting the 100 shares paid for.

COURT OF .EXCHEQUER, Jan. 19.
lAlthr.e (Sittings in Banco.)
The Court proceeded to-day with the demurrer
Thbeistoxi paper, but no case cf public interest was argued.
"
(Sittings at Guildhall, in Hilary Term, at Nisi Prius,rs
Baron PLATT T,
sittings at Nisi Prins, in the PLAT and Common Juries.)
present term.
HEMMINGWAY V. WYNNE.
Mr. Knowles, with Mr. Milward, eppeared as counsel
for •thr! plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Edwards,
were for the defendant.
This was an action to recover a,' balance of 1951, al-
leged to be duo for the purchase of the horse Elcho, for
which the defendant had agreed to give 3951.
Tho defendant pleaded, never indebted, payment, and
a set-off.

fienature of this case will be best gathered from the
subjoined evidence.
Robert Hemmingway, the plaintiff, was called, and
said—l had a horse named Elcho, which was at the
training stables of William Scott, at Prestbury, near
Cheltenham. That horse was entered to run for the
Liverpool Cup, in July. I purchased the horse of a
Mr. Phillips, of Bushby, in the mouth of July, 1849.
I gave 800 guineas for the animal, which was at that
time two years old. I ;an the horse three or four
times. In the mouth of June last I saw a Mr. Aspinal,
with whom I had some conversation on the subject of
.
a loan, which I wanted upon the horse. On a sub-
that gentleman in
ilrlkant againntehraw
i 1 the manager. He is the
m
o added,
sell
w a
caw
of the North and
bank
theea n
manager
ae
gnn of
company
ri n occasionowp ahfnicythewhich
of
theß Wynne. This was at the
a Mr.
Wales Bank. I informed Wynne of the amount
I was in want of,vvbhuicththhaotrsle, Itt l d nocathe o
rth horse,so oat as
a person of the name of Deacon had a claim of 140/.
,
anxious to pay off Deacon's claim, and to obtain a fur-
ther ssm of 601., to enable me to back the horse for the
Liverpool Cup. Mr: Wynne replied that he could easily
uanpdonthtahtelhorse,
could not take A smaller sum for it. I was
manage the affair for me, and that I should have the
money I wanted. I then remarked that it would be
more satisfactory were Mr. Wynne to go to Prestbury
and examine the horse with a veterinary surgeon prior
to his making any advance upon him, and in consequence
mi.. wynne, ear. Aspinal, and myself went to Chelten-
ham on the 27th. of June. We examined the animal on
the Sunday, and an arrangement was then entered into,
by which Mr. Aspinal was to remain behind. for
the purpose of seeing Etch° take his " last sweat."
This arrangetnent was accordingly carried out,
and the last sweat was witnessed by that per-
s,-,n. W. Scott tried Elcho against Truth on the
2iith of June, when it was found that Truth WAS the
better horse. Truth was entered for the July Cup, as
well as Elcho. After this trial I informed Aspinal that
of the two Truth was the better horse. Scott also said
that it would be useless to send Elcho to Liverpool, and
that Mr. Wynne ought to be made acquainted with the
circumstance. The horse was not sent to Liverpool. I
went to the defendant on the 30th of June, and saw him
in his back parlour. Aarale,re i
reported the state and cod-
dition of the horse, and then the defendant paid me 1401.
in part payment of the hares. This sum I was to pay
to Deacon. The defendant then stated that until he had
got the horse he should have no security, and therefore
suggested that Aspinal should draw upon me for 2001.
This was done. The defendant told me that he would
pay the remaining 60/. in a few days. With that 601. I
intended to back Elcho. The defendant also said he
must have a receipt from me,
ati_ _
proof that the horse
was his, and that he had purchased it. I replied I had no
objection to give the recei-
pt, but if I did that I should be
entirely in his hands, and
must trust to his honour in the
affair. The defendant said that the receipt must be given
in the name of Pearce, and accordingly Aspinal drew
it out in that name. All that was paid on that occasion
was 1401. The defendant said he would take care that I
should have every justice done me when I spoke of trust-
ing to his honour. The price that was ultimately agreed
upon for the horse Was 395 L,
even after it had been
arranged that 400/. was to be the sum. Upon the 4th
July I called on the, defendant, when Aspinal was not
present. I then asked for the 60/. to back the horse with.
The defendant handee
me that sum, and nothing more,
and on the 26th July the horse was delivered to him. I
did not ask for the balance on that occasion, but when the
bill was presented for payment I did apply for it. The
reason of my g giveal_the bill was to obtain the delivery of
the horse. The defendant laughed at me when I asked
for the balance, but said the horse was entered for three
stakes, and that when these events had come off the
balance should be paid.
araination the
In his create() - • • plaintiff stated that he
x
was an African merchant, trafficking mostly in palm oil.
a bankrupt
He bad been from having lost 25,0001. in his
business, and since that, in November last, he had made
an arrangement with some of his creditors to pay them
10s. in the pound.
W. Scott, the trainer, proved that Mr. Aspinal was
present at the last sweat, and that it was by his own re-
commendation that the horse Elcho had not been sent to
Liverpool.

Mr* E. JAMES then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and said
on the 21st of June,
As-
pinal, and on the following
the that he would produce such evidence as
to
Payment for the horse, as that they could not
fail in awarding a verdict in favour of his client. The
Learned Gentleman then culled
William
did not with the plaintiff and As-
morning saw Elcho, but I
Maurice Wynne, who said—l went to Chel-
tenhamOn the same night I returned to Liverpool. On the 2Gth
at that time decide upon purchasing the horse.
of June the plaintiff, accompanied by Aspinal, came to
my
house,
when the latter inquired what stamp would
cover 2001., and I replied a five shilling stamp. Aspinal
then wont out and bought the stamp, and during his ab-
sence the plaintiff and I had some conversation
about the hers 3 Eleho. We agreed as to the
price of the horse, and I was to pay 4001. I was at
this time aware that the horse was entered for the
Liverpool July
raa;tcr. At;pinal and the
settled, i4lit the bank tog
mo at Liverpool. *When Aspinal returned the bill was
drawn, and the money was handed to the plaintiff by
wi businessno Iklon wasday
Cup The horse was to be delivered to
Aspinal. I had nothing to do with the transaction; it
W" 110 affair of mine. -There is not one word of truth
in the statement of the plaintiff with respect to this
and th'sen I paid
the plsintiff
the former 3401., in part payment of the 4001. This
money I paid in my private room at the Bank, 14' h e
and Aspinal called on me,
e:Plaaerin. plaintiff, after
athfteerfo?loe