The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-11 00:00:00

been suddenly deprived of their breadwinners, and
reduced to despondency and poverty. Mr. Smith,
surgeon, of Barnsley, who is assiduously attending
to the auth:rers, states that several of them are in a
critical position. Every attention is being paid to
the unfortunate men, and there are hopes enter-
tained that the bulk of them will be able to go about
again in a short time.
Mr. Taylor, coroner, opened an inquest on Tues-
day night on the body of the man named Davy, then
lying at the Masons' Arms. Formal evidence of
identity was given, and the inquest adjourned.
George Pickering died whilst the inquiry was pro-
ceeding. _

At nine o'clock on Tuesday night the engineers
of the inspector determined to seal up all the pits,
and turn the water in, with a view of putting out
the fire. Threats were freely uttered as to what
would be done if the engineer persisted in their in-
tention.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 10,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term at Guildhall, be-
fore Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)
LUFF V. HORNER.
This was an interpleader to issuo to try the
plaintiff's right, as against the defendant, to certain
goods seized in execution on the premises, 103,
Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury.
Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., and Mr. H. Clarke were
counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and
Mr. J. Simon were counsel for defendant.
The defendant, Mrs. Horner, is a widow lady,
and a teacher of dancing, and the plaintiff is a piano-
forte maker at 103, Great Russell-street, Blooms-
.

bury-square. The defendant was the execution cre-
ditor of the plaintiff's father, and the question was
whether the goods belonged to the son or the father.
The plaintiff alleged that the partnership that ex-
isted at one time between him and his father was
dissolved in February, 1860.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said that about
the time the execution was put in he compromised
with his creditors_ He owed £BO, and he paid over
£4O. After the execution he sold £4OO worth of
pianofortes by private contract. £1,183 was the
amount of the execution debt. He saw his father at
Calais in June last. At one time by arrangement
his father's attorney acted for Mrs. Horner. The
origin of the acquaintance with the defendant arose
from her borrowing a piano when she was Mrs.
Marriott. He visited the defendant, and was pre-

sent at one evening party. He never beard or knew
that the defendant was a woman struggling Nith dif-
ficulties and working heard for her living. She mar-
ried her late husband in 1851. He kne e she had
entrusted valuable securities to his father before
her husband's death. Previously, she called and
saw him and his father. She had asked his father
to realise. He obtained £2,300 for the bonds
through Mr. Lamb, his friend, a wine and spirit
merchant, carrying on business in Mark-lane. Ho
had realised two or three days before that inter-
view, and he knew she was coming for the money.
He knew that her husband was ill, but he was not
aware that he was on his death-bed. The whole of
the money was paid over to the defendant. He did
not hand over £5O and say the remainder should be
forthcoming on the following day_ He saw the
whole of the money handed over to her.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Did it remain long
with her P—l don't know.
Don't you know that your father obtained

again from her P-1 do not. I swore the notes
were counted out, and he handed the whole of the
money over to her in her father's back drawing-
room. He did not take a receipt for the money.
He then left the room. He had no doubt his father
had some of the money from her. He could not
say if his father kept all the money except £5O. He
did not ask his father how much he had kept back,
and his father had never told him. He had great
doubts that it went into the business. It was some
time after Mr. Horner's death that he heard that
his father had kept back the money. He did not
ask his father how much money he had kept back,
because it was no business of his. He had no curio-
sity about the matter. He did not think it was a
dishonest transaction. He was not aware she had
not been paid back one halfpenny of it. An action
was brought against his father by the defendant
for £l,lOO. Judgment was allowed to go
by default, and execution was issued. Chan-
cery procedings were instituted in relation
to the bonds, and Mr. Broughton, his attorney,
acted for her. After the commencement of the
Chancery proceedings he took the defendant to
Brussels under his attorney's advice. He was not
aware that his father was paying, his addresses to
the defendant. It was the first tune he had heard
of it. He had no curiosity to know the amount in
dispute between his father and the defendant, and
he made no inquiries about it. He only took care
to look after his own interests. Ho thought the
Chancery suit was compromised for £5OO. He did
not know whose pocket the money came out of.
Certainly not out of his or out of the business. He
dissolved partnership with his father in February,
1860. The goods were sold under the execution.
He informed the defendant about that time that
they were going to dissolve partnership. He had
never asked her to accept £5OO and forego all claims
upon him. He received a telegram from his father
after the execution was put in to sell. It was in
answer to a letter asking his advice. He did not
ask his father's permission to sell. The execution
was against his father, but it had been put in on
plaintiff's goods. He had carried on business on
his own account since February, 1860. The bonds
in question were on American railways not known
in the market. He got the best price he could ob-
tain for them. He had nothing more to do with
the money besides receiving it and handing it over.
The attorney advised Mrs. Horner to go to Brussels
to avoid an attachment from the Court of Chancery.
Mr. Burroughs was called—He explained the
Chancery proceedings. It was a fishing suit. The
bonds produced £2,250. He spoke to the dissolu-
tion of partnership and the assignment of the goods,
&e., to the plaintiff in February, 1860. Sending
the defendant to Brussels facilitated the settlement
of the Chancery proceedings.
Several persons who dealt with the firm of Luff
and Son were called to prove that in 1860 that was
the name of the firm. The cheques were signed
"Lull and Son," and after that time in the son's
name only. They understood the parties dissolved
partnership, but they did not see it in the Gazette.
One of the witness said the words "Luff and
Son" were still over the door. The son gave bills
to the father for the purchase-money, running over
a period of years.
Mr. Simon, for the defence, said the alleged part-
nership though regular and proper on the face of it,
was a sham and a fraud, in order to get rid of the
defendant's just claim. It was a case not only of the
greatest hardship, but of shameful fraud, in which
the son had aided and abetted the father, and from
which fraud he had been one of the principal per-
son benefited. The defendant in her widowhood
earnee her livelihood by teaching dancing, and she
first became acquainted with the plaintiff and his
father from borrowing a piano from them. The
father and soon visited her, a friendly feeling sprung.
up between them, and the father displayed an ac-
tive interest in her welfare. In 1856 she became ac-
quainted with Mr. Horner, who was without means
but was in expectations from a wealthy aunt, and
she still continued teaching dancing, earning about
£3OO per annum, on which they lived. The bonds in
question were given by the aunt to the husband.
They lived in Essex, and the husband had ruptured
a bloodvesael. Mrs. Horner had to come backward
and forward to attend to her pupils. The father ex-
pressed great sympathy for her, and his readiness
to assist her in her troubles. He became acquainted
with the husband, and being in his and the wife's
con fillen. e they spoke of thhonds. The father said
he would take them and realise them in order that
the husband might make some provision for his wife
(defendant) after his death. The bonds were accord-
ingly delivered to Luff, sen., and some days after she
received a letter from him stating that he had rea-
lised the bonds and had the money ready for her.
She accordingly came up to town and called on the
plain tiff, at Great Russell-street. She was shown
into the father's private room, and instead of the
proceeds of the bonds, amounting to £3,000 though
said to he only
£2,350, a little drama was acted.
Luff, jun., held a parcel in his hand which the
hither had given to him, which he was told to
hand over to the defendant. He did so, and
then she was told by the father to hand it
beck to him. Not leaving the slightest idea of what
it me Int, but supposing it was a necessary formality
to be gone through, she gave back the money as re-
quest, d. Upon that the father said, in the presence
of the son, that he thought it would be unsafe for
her to have so large a sum about her, and advised
her to take about £5O for her present wants, and
leave the remainder with him, and he would bring
it dawn to her and her husband the following day.
At that time Mr. Horner was on the point of death.
and the Luffs knew it. When she gave her hus-
band the £5O he expressed his surprise that she had
not the whole of the money. A day or two after-
wards be died, and almost immediately after the
father called on the defendant and expressed great
sympathy, and volunteered his services in settling
her affairs,
and he acted for her about the funeral, &c.
After a while she asked the father for the money,
but he put her off from time to time by various ex-
eases. The Chancery suit was then commenced and
knowing n
on his statements that he would arrange and settle
everything, and on his advice she wont to Brussels.
()thing About_ the, proceedings, she. relied

She relied entirely on him. The suit proceeded,
and was ultimately compromised for £5OO, which
the learned counsel said was no doubt paid out of
the proceeds of the bonds. On her return to Eng-
land, she egain made application for her money,
and began to preso hard for it. The father then
commenced paying his addresses to her, was ac-
cepted, and under the circumstances nothing further
was done in the matter. The proposal was made
merely for the sake of delay, and in order to get
rid of the claim. He broke his promise of mar-
riage, and she forgave him. He then renewed
his promise, and was again accepted, thinking
it better to forgive his past violation of good
faith, and not to quarrel with the man
who had, as she supposed, £2,500 of her
money i❑ his possession. He, however, again broke
from his promise, and took back his cook to live
with him, by whom he bad had a child, which
it was alleged by the plaintiff was the cause of his
disagreeing with his father and their dissolving
partnership. She then abandoned all thoughts of
marriage with the elder Luff, being convinced that
his promises had only been made for the purpose of
getting rid of her claim. Mr. Simon strongly cen-
sured the attorney's conduct in acting for both par-
t ties, and animadverted on the purchase and sale of
the business by the father and son. The fact that
the son had given the father six bills for £636 each,
the first for two years, and the others running over
seven years, for his share of the business, were
terms of that easy character which led to the belief
that it was a colourable transaction for the pur-
pose of defeating the defendant's claim.
The defendant was called and corroborated the
learned counsel's statement. She said that she went
to Brussels at the father's suggestion—in fact she
acted under his advice, and placed every confidence
in him then. She had then accepted hie proposals
of marriage, and in consequence of that she went
abroad, and upon that promise she gave up her pro-
fession, which was realising £3OO per annum, and
her home. The old man said he would take her to
Brussels, but instead of that he sent his son George,
the plaintiff, with her. She was there in an assumed
name. She came home, and had to leave almost
immediately in the assumed name of Brown, and she
was not to see or communicate with any one. That
was during the Chancery proceedings. When she
came back the second time she was penniless. Her
household furniture had been sold, and she was told
that nothing belonged to her.
Mr. Huddleston objected to this kind of evidence,
upea, which
Mr. Justice Crompton said he doubted if it would
make old Luff worse. (Laughter.)
Defendant said that after she left England she
discovered far the first time, that the elder Luff had
formed an improper connexion with a common
woman. She added that she told the plaintiff he
had aided and assisted his father in bringing her to
a state of destitution. He appeared to be deeply
affected, and said he would be ruined if she pressed
her claim. The plaintiff wanted her on one occa-
sion to compromise the matter for £5OO in bills.
She consulted Mr. Broughton, her attorney, and
gave him full powers to act, and to proceed imme-
diately against the Luffs as against strangers.
Neither the plaintiff nor his solicitor ever told her
about the dissolution of partnership. Ultimately a
judgment was obtained against the father, and execu-
tion put in. He left England, and there was some
difficulty in serving the writ. In the action she gave
old Luff credit for the payment of £1,328 lie. 6d.,
and the judgment was for £l,lOO. The greater por-
tion of the credit was for money supplied when she was
abroad. Her husband's relatives commenced proceed-
ings in Chancery against her about the bonds. She
heard of the dissolution on the 29th February,lB6o.
During the elder Luff's absence, after the issue of
the writ, negotiations were going on with a view to
a settlement. She had no idea what the p creel was
the plaintiff passed to her in the father's presence.
It was a small light brown paper parcel.
Other evidence was then called in support of the
learned counsel's statement.
Mr. Justice Crompton, in summing up. said they
had nothing to do with the father's treatment of
the defendant, but whether the dissolution of part-
nership and the purchase of the business was such
as would pass the property and make the transac-
tion valid in law.
Before the jury returned their verdict a compro-
mise was entered into, whereby the defendant ac-
cepted £3OO. A juror was then withdrawn.