The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-07 00:00:00

BURN V. CARYALHO.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this I
case, in ":which the question was whether certain pro-
perty belonging to a bankrupt was in equity, now the
property of,his assignees, or whether, under the circum-
stances that had taken place, it belonged to the plaintiff.
It had been decided in an action of trover. both in the
Courts of Queen's Bench and Exchequer, that the pro-
perty passed to the assignees of the Bankrupt, but as
that opinion was founded in strict law his Lordship did
not consider that the question he had to decide was
affected by what had taken place at law, and in taking
that view of the case he was borne out by what
had taken place in West and Mangles in Vesey.
The short facts of the case, out of which the question
arose, were as follow :—A person of the name of For-
tunato, who carried on business at Liverpool, had been
in the habit of consigning goods for sale to a person of
the name of Riego, and drawing upon him for the pro-
ceeds. For the;purpose of realising the bills, he em-
ployed the firm, which the plaintiff now represented, to
negotiate them. The plaintiffs, Burn and Co., having
beard that some of the bills had been refused acceptance
by Riego, applied to Fortunato, requesting him
to write to Riego, desiring him, in case the pro-
perty in his hands should not be sufficient
to pay the drafts, to hand over the pro-
perty in his possession to a person named. Voger.
Fortunato wrote agreeably to the request of the plaiT,
tiff, and ultimately it was discovered the proceeds in
the hands of Riego sere not sufficient to pay the bills,
and Fortunato remained a debtor to the plaintiffs to a
considerable amount. On the 23d of June, 1829, a
commission of bankruptcy issued against Fortunate, and
a judgment was obtained by his assignees in an action
of trover, for the value of the goods that had been de-
livered by Riego to Voger, in consequence of letter
;cot to him by Fortunato. The result of the facts,
pecuniarytherefore, was, that Fortunato being under pecuniary
obligations to the plaintiff, and having property in the
.
hands of Ricgo, promised to apply such property the
discharge of those liabilities, and sent instructions r'ur
that purpose to Riego ; but before that communication
arrived Fortunato became bankrupt, and the question
was, whether, under those circumstances, the letter to
Riego gave the plaintiff in equity any right to the °l.O-
- or whether it passed to the assignees? Now the:e
could be no doubt that in equity an order given by a
debtor to a third person, to hand over goods to another
for the benefit of his creditors, was a binding equitable
assignment. Such a doctrine was held by Lord liardwicke,
in Roe and Dawson, in Ist Vesey 32, and Lord Eldon
had said, in ex-parte South:and Swanston, that if a debtor
gave an order to a creditor to obtain payment of his
debts from other persons, that order in equity bound
the debtor ; the same principle was also recognised in
Fitzgerald and Hunt, Lett and Morris, and Watson
and the Duke of Wellington. His Lordship was,
therefore, clearly of opinion with the Vice-Chancellor,
that the letter sent by Fortunato to Riego on the 9th
of April, 1829, amounted to an equitable assignment of
the property in the hands of the latter. Such being his
Lordship's opinion, the plaintiff must be considered as
having a good title in equity to the goods delivered to
Voger, and the decree of the Vice-Chancellor must
therefore be affirmed, with costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord DENJMA'x and a Special Jury.)

THE PNEUMATIC RAILWAY.-.-SARTOILIUS V. PINK-

HURST.

The ATTORNEY-GIiaRAL stated the case. It was
an action brought by Admiral Sartorious, well-known
and distinguished officer, to recover a sum of money,
amounting to 200/., lent by him to the defendant, an
American gentleman, to whom he had been very kind.
and from whom he had met with a very ungrateful re-
turn. It appeared that in 1834, various sums had been
lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, but upon the pre-
sent occasion he would confine himself to a sum of 200/.
lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, through the agency
of a gentleman named Hoskins. Mr. Pinkhurst, being
in want of money, applied to Mr. Hoskins, who obtained
the loan from Admiral Sartorius, and paid it over to
the defendant. as it was required by him. The de-
fendant pleaded that he was not liable ; that he had
paid the money ; idly, that the money was to be paid
at the termination of a Chancery suit, although there
was no restriction of the kind whatever ; and, 4thly,
there was a plea of usury, but he believed not one of
these pleas could be substantiated.

William Hoskins—l am an architect, residing in
Woburn-square. I know the plaintiff and defendant.
In 1834 the defendant requested me to borrow a sum of
money for him from any person I could obtain it from.
I applied in consequence of that to the plaintiff, who
advanced on one occasion 1001., and subsequently an-
other 100/. I handed it over to the defendant. There
was nothing said about the terms of the loan at that time
or previously to obtaining it.
Cross-examined by Mr. BAYLEY—The first sum was
on the 10th of April, 1834, and the second on the 14th
of July. Admiral Sartorius was then in England. He
left England at the latter end of that year, and returned
in 1837. The money was paid in checks drawn by me
in favour of the defendant at different times. I got
checks from Admiral Sartorius for two sums of 100/.
each. I gave the money to defendant in smaller sums,
paying people on his account, and at his request. On
the Bth April, 1834, I gave him personally a check for
20/. The next is the 14th July, for 81. The next is
22d July, for 12/. The next is the 24th July, 201. ;
26th July, 6/. ; 31st July, 5/. ; August Gth, 81. I
have in all 14 checks paid to him personally, amounting
to 2041. ; 20/. of that was paid before the 10th April,
the date of the loan. Previously to the loan I had no
money of the defendant's in my hands. I afterwards
had. I was apprised of a railway project in March,
1834, by the defendant. He was introduced to me by a
Mr. West. I directed the making of drawings when the
patent was about to be applied for. I endeavoured to
obtain funds for the defendant to assist him in his pro-
ject, and the money was borrowed from Admiral Sar-
torius, mainly with that object. The Company was
formed 4arly in 1835, and a prospectus issued. Ad-
miral Sartorius's name was inserted as a Director. I
was called the professional Director. I managed, el-
though I was not called the managing Director. Receipts
were issued for deposits, and about 4,0001., or a little
more, was received. The money was paid into the
hands of two bankers. I paid about 60/. on my own
account. That was my deposit on twenty shares. I
paid a like sum for Admiral Sartorius. The two
hundred pounds in question was paid into Rogers and
Towgood's, on my private account. All the money
drawn out on behalf of the Company, was by checks,
signed by two Directors and countersigned by me.
Five hundred pounds was paid to Mr. Pinkhurst to re-
imburse him for expenses in bringing forward the pro-
ject and taking out his patent. On the 19th of April,
1834, Mr. Pinkhurst paid 4801. on my account into
Rogers's bank. The five hundred pounds of the Com-
pany's funds, which was granted to Mr. Pinkhurst, was
paid, at his request, into my private account at Rogers',
and I repaid it to him in small sums. I have his letter
acknowledging that he was repaid that 5001. I repaid
him the 4801. also. The patent is at present in the
hands of the solicitor. It was agreed that the patent
should become the property of the Company, if
found to be valuable, and Mr. Pinkhurst was to be
remunerated for it by receiving half of what was sub.
scribed. Mr. Pinkhurst claimed all the 4000/. sub-
scribed, but that claim was not allowed. The Directors
contracted for some works in 1836 and the early part of
1837. Admiral Sartorius returned to England in
May 1837. Colonel Shaw was one of the Directors
of the Company. There was a Committee appointed,
but not by the Directors. I did not attend the meet-
ing, because I knew Pinkhurst would be there, and his
manner was so offensive I did not choose to meet him.
Several actions have been brought against the Direc-
tors by Pinkhurst, and abandoned. There may be one
pending now for ought I know. Admiral Sartorius bad
nothing to do with the Company till 1833. The loans
had nothing whatever to do with the Company, which
had not then been formed.
Mr. BAYLEY addressed the Jury for the defendant.
lie denied that there was anything unhandsome or un-
fair in the conduct of Mr. Pinkhurst, who, on the con-
trary, had been most improperly treated by the Direc-
tors of the Company, of whom the plaintiff and Mr.
Hoskins were two. The fact was, that Mr. Pink-
hurst's invention, which was called the Pneumatic
Railway System, was shown to be se important and
valuable that the Directors had agreeed to give
him 9,0001. for it, and when the Company
was in operation a further sum of 91,000/., snaking
in all a sum of 100,0001. The whole amount shown to
have been paid to Mr. Pinkhurst was about 200/.,
Pinkhurst
sumhad f
2poaoi
Id.
Ito
t
stoh
andM r .
another
WhileAlr. H it
kwians's admitted
credit 4
was clear, therefore, that the money paid in these small
checks by Mr. Hoskins to the defendant was his own,
and that the loan was made to Mr. Hoskins himself by.
Admiral Sartorius, and not to the defendant. He had
no witnesses to examine, those who knew anything of
the transaction being in America, and he would there-
fore leave the case with that statement in the hands of
the Jury.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 200/.

The obzequies of the late Right Hon. Diana
Jane, Countess of Ranfurly, who died at the hotel of
the Noble Earl, in Paris, on the 24th ult., took place
on Monday, in the French capital. Her Ladyship was
the eldest daughter and co-heir of Edmund Seaters
Viscount Pery.