The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-27 00:00:00

LAW INTE

(This Day).

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.:
SHEDLOCK V. WESTON-A FAIRY FOUNTAIN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendant, Mr. Weston, the proprietor of a Music
Hall in Holborn, the amount of bill for fitting up a fairy
fountain at his establishment.' The plaintiff said he
entered into an agreement with a person of the name
of Sylvester for the fitting up of the fountain, upon the
clear understanding that the cost was to be £l2, but when
the work was finished a bill was sent in by the plaintiff for
£4O, which the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff
said he was engaged by Mr. Sylvester to erect the foun-
tain, bM, that it was not for a moment imagined that
the tank, itc., was not to be executed for the sum of
£l2. The defendant refused to pay more than £l2,
being of the opinion that that was quite sufficient,
especially as •the fountain, rather than proving
a pleasure to his patrons, turned out quite the reverse.
Mr. Corrie, Mr. Weston's manager, was examined, and
said that, during the time the fountain was playing, many
of the audience had to put up their umbrellas to keep the
water off them. He, however, admitted that the fountain
played nearly up to the ceiling, a considerable height, and'
that there of necessity must have been a great quantity of
spray.

Mr. Vireston's treasurer-was also examined, and he stated
that the charge for erecting the fountain was clearly un-
derstood to be £l2.

The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £33 48.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Holroyd.)
IN RE SIR JAMES JOHN RANDALL MACKENZIE, BART.
This bankrupt was described as of Claridge's Hotel.
To-day he came up to pass his last examination for the
order of discharge.
Mr. Bazley said he appeared for Lord Fitzwilliam, as
executor to the late Earl Fitzwilliam. He (Mr. Bazley)
asked that a claim might be inserted on behalf of his client.
Lord Fitzwilliam had obtained a judgment for X 33,000,
moneys advanced upon landed property in Scotland. It
was alleged that the bankrupt had mortgaged this property
over and over again, and proceedings were now pending
in the Scotch courts to determine as to the right of Earl
Fitzwilliam to this property. Pending the proceedings in
Scotland, he now asked that the claim should be inserted
in the schedule.
Mr. Sargood (for the assignees) strongly objected to any
such course. There was an attempt to saddle this estate
with a debt of X 33,000, without any proof that the mort-
gage was not sufficiently protected by the property upon
whichthe money was advanced.
His Honour thought there could be no harm in letting
the amount be inserted.
Mr. Sargood said there was no dividend.
Mr. Bazley—Then no harm can be done by the mention
of the claim. The judgment obtained by Lord Fitzwilliam
in the Court of Common Pleas was long before the bank-
ruptcy. I ask you to order the claim to be inserted, and
also one by Mr. Brown for £7,000 for moneys advanced.
His Honout ordered the sums to be entered on the pro-
.ceedings.

Mr. Sargood applied for an adjournment. The accounts
were very voluminous, and the deficiency was £26,000,
and required investigation.
Mr. Lawrence (for the bankrupt)said that Sir James was
quite prepared to go on, and objected to any adjournment,
The accounts were all vouched, and the creditors had had
plenty of time to examine them.
After some further discussion, the case was adjourned.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
, GRINDING DOWN THE POOR-EDNEY Y. BUTTON.
This was an action to recover ss. for coveting parasols,
plaintiff being a poor workwoman, of 9, Underwood-street,
Mile-end New-town, and defendant an umbrella maker, of
6, Monkwell-street, in the City.
_ _

When plaintiff was sworn she stated that she had charged
for covering six dozen parasols.

His Honour—Well, but how is this—you have only.
claimed ss. ?

Plaintiff—Yes, sir ; that is all.
His Honour-ss. for covering six dozen parasols ! Why
is not l.d. each.

Plaintiff—l do not get Id. each. The price paid is 10d,
per dozen.

His Honour—Why do you not pay this money, defendant?
Defendant—Because she soiled the parasols.

His Honour—Soiled the parasols ! - Why do you not
pay proper prices ? You cannot expect to have them done
properly for the price you pay.
Defendant—But your Honour must remember that these
things are done by a machine.

His Honour—Well, machine or no machine, the price
you pay is not sufficient.

Defendant thought it would be rather hard upon him if
he were ordered to pay for these goods when the plaintiff
had spoiled them and spotted them with grease.
His Honour said there was no hardship at all in the
matter. If people would pay such prices as those admitted
in this case, they must expect that the work would not be
properly done. In this case the plaintiff would have a
verdict with costs.
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.

MARKETS—This Day.