The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-14 00:00:00

IN RE FROWD.

This was a petition which had been partly heard
by his Lordship in his pri►•ate room. It prayed that
a warrant issued against Mr. Frowd by the 14th
List might be set aside. Mr. Frowd was a solicitor
employed in the recent case of " White and Met-
calf," and the warrant bad been issued by the 14th
List of Commissioners in consequence of Mr. Frond's
refusal to deliver up a mortgage deed. Counsel
were now further heard upon the petition, and his
Lordship finally determined that the warrant of the
Commissioners should be issued, giving Mr. Frowd
an opportunity of applying for habeas corpus, when
the whole matter might be discussed.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded with the list of
bankrupt petitions, none of which were of interest.

VICE-CIIANCELLOWS COURT, JAN. 13.

ER PARTE STRACIIAN IN RE REMINGTON AND CO.

Mr. Hoits:r. said, that this ►vas a petition, praying
that the proof of a debt of .50,0004, made by the
Directors of the London Life Assurance Company
against the ;estate of Remington and Company,
might be expunged. The petitioners were the
assignees of Messrs. Remington and Co., who, his
Honour would recollect, had become bankrupt in
consequence of the conduct of their partner Mr.
Howland Stephenson. The latter, as well as being,
partner in the firm of Remington and Co., ►was also
a Director and Trustee of the London Life Assurance
Company. This Company, which kept a cash ac-
count at Messrs. Remington's, had also been in the
habit fur many years past of keeping at the banking-
house a tin box, in which were deposited securities
and other property belonging to the Company. The
box was locked, and there were two keys of it, which
►were separately intrusted to two of the Directors of
the Company. One of these keys was in the cus-
tody of Ro►vland Stephenson, not as a partner in
the firm of Remington and Co., but as a Director of
the London Life Assurance Company, and the other
key was intrusted to Sir Claudius Stephen Hunter,
another Director. Among other delinquencies of
Stephenson he made use of Exchequer-bills, and
other securities, deposited in this box, to the amount
of 50,0001.; and for this sum the Directors of the
Company had been allowed to prove against the
estate of Messrs. Remington. Now the partners of
Stephenson, if aware that this box was deposited
at their banking-house, certainly had no controul over
it, and the question raised by this petition was,
►whether, under such circumstances, they could be
made responsible for the-contents of the box.
Mr. ROSE (►with whom was Mr. ROOTS) opposed
the prayer of the petition. The line of argument
taken by the learned Counsel was, that the firm bad
not exercised due care and circumspection.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought it clearly a case
which required farther inquiry; and should therefore
direct an issue to try whether any and ►shat debt
was due from the firm of Remington and Co. to the
Londo❑ Life Assurance Company.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 13.
READ V. RANN.

This was an action by a ship-broker in the city,
against Mr. It'inn, a ship-owner, to recover a sum
of 841. for commission on a contract effected by the
plaintiff between the defendant and a Capt. Hardley.
It appeared in evidence, that in the summer of
1827 the plaintiff negotiated between the defendant
Wand Captain Hardley, for the hire by the latter of a
ship of the plaintiff's, called -the Mermaid, on a
voyage from London to Calcutta. A contract, pre-
pared by the plaintiff, was entered into between the
partied, by which it was stipulated that Captain
Hardley, who was trading to India, should charter
the Mermaid, a vessel of 473 tons, for a period of
twelve months, at the rate of 12s. per ton per
month. After the contract had been signed, it was
handed over to a notary to prepare the charter party.
The notary having, at the instance of the defendant,
introduced some clauses which the contract did not
authorize, Captain Hardley objected to them, and
the contract was in consequence rescinded. The
plaintiff, however, sent in his charge for commis-
sion at the rate of 2.1 per cent., which he claimed
to be entitled to under a custom which, as he
alleged, prevailed among ship-brokers, to charge
for commission in every case where a contract of
this description was effected through his means,
whether the vessel sailed on a voyage or not.
Several ship-brokers were now called to prove
that a broker was considered to have earned his
commission immediately the contract was entered
into, and before the charter-party was signed. They
all, with one exception, spoke to this custom; but
it appeared that none of them had ever actually re-
ceived commission under such circumstances.

Lord TENTERDEN, upon these facts, decided that
the custom upon which the plaintiff relied had not
been satisfactorily established; and the plaintiff Was
therefore nonsuit ed.