The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 10.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
IN RE MITRE ASSURANCE COMPANY.-EX PARTE

EYRE.
In this matter the question was whether the
transfer by Mr. Eyre to Mr. Bird of 30 shares in
the above company was valid. The company is
being wound up, and upon the answer this ques-
tion depended another, viz., whether Mr. Eyre was
to be put on the list as a contributory. The parties
were examined viva voce at the hearing, and to-
day his Honour delivered judgment. After going
through the facts he added that in these cases the
the solvency of the transferee does not affect
the question if the transfer be bona fide, and in
'proper form ; but if the state of the company was
,such that a winding-up order was inevitable, and
if the petitioner colluded with the directors to
enable them to exhibit a nominal continuation of
the 'company, to the prejudice of the other share-
holders, at the price of being relieved from liability,
and being paid his costs, the transaction would be
bad, and the other shareholders would have the
right to ask that Mr. Eyre's name be placed on the
list of contributors, which his Honour accordingly
directed.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Swans-
ton, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Terrell appeared in the
case.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Bancc_(Before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn, and Justices Wightman, Crompton,
and Blackburn•)
STEPHEN DIXON, SUPPLIANT-THE QUEEN, RE-
SPONDENT-PETITION OF RIGHT.

This was a petition of right, under which the
suppliant prayed that the sum of £70,000 should
be returned to him, which he alleged had been
charged in excess by the collectors of spirit duties
from the grocers of Dublin.
The suppliant appeared in person ; the Attorney-
General, Mr. Lock, Q.C., and Mr. Hutton, repre-
sented the Crown.
The suppliant was a grocer in Dublin, and had a
spirit license whereby he could sell a certain quan-
tity of spirits to customers, the spirits to be drunk
on the premises, and the question involved was whe-
ther he was liable to the higher rate of excise duty,
which was decided in favour of the collector by a
verdict of the jury in an action brought by the sup-
pliant to recover the excess. The suppliant then re-
ferred a petition of right, when the Attorney-Gene-
ral issued his fiat ; and it now came before this court,
who exprinsed an opinion that they could not go
into the, material question whether £70,000 had been
charged in excess on all the grocers of Dublin hold-
ing a license similar to that of the suppliant, but
-whether 16s 61d had been charged in excess on
him personally, It was proposed on behalf of the
crown that the case should be taken into the Court
of Error in England, and this proposal was acceded
to, their lordships giving judgment for the sup-
pliant, but refraining from expressing any opinion
on the merits.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco in Trinity. Term.—(Before Lord
Chief Bari Pollock and Barons Martin, Bram-
well, an€t Channell.)
COX AND OTHERS V. THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDER.
MEN OF THE CITY OF LONDON-JUDGMENT.

This was an'attachment issued out of the Lord
Mayor's Court., in an action at the suit of Buck-
master, a tailor, against Farquharson, an officer in
the army, upon certain moneys belonging to the
latter in the hands of Messrs. Cox and Co. army
agents at Charing-cross, with whom he kept an
account. When one of the partners in the firm
of Messrs. Cox was in the City on business he was
served with the attachment. They subsequently
moved for a prohibition against the Lord Mayor's
Court to prevent any further proceedings on the
attachment, and the declaration, which was filed at
the suggestion of this court, stated that the custom
of the city of London did not give jurisdiction in
cases in which none of the parties resided or dwelt
within the City, and where the cause of action did
not arise within it. To this the defendants pleaded
the custom of the City of London, and the case came
on frJr argument upon a demurrer to that plea.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Griffits were heard
nn the part of the plaintiffs ' • and Sir F. Kelly and
Mr. Charles Pollock on behalf of the corporation.
The Lord Chief Baron now delivered the judg-
ment of the court. The question was, whether the
custom set out in the plea, assuming it to exist in
fact, failed in law. That custom claimed jurisdic-
tion over all persons and all cases, provided the
garnishee, who in this case was represented by
Messrs. Cox and Company, was in the City at
the time the attachment was served. His lordship
said that it was only necessary to state such a cus-
tom in order to show its invalidity, because it
was repugnant to the ordinary jurisdiction of a
local oourt. Judgment would therefore be for the
plaintiffs.

Judgment for the plaintiffs accordingly.
GRIMBELL V. GIITGLINI.

Mr. H. James moved for a rule to show cause
Why an order made by Mr. Baron Martin, re-
ferring this case to the arbitration of the Master
under the compulsory powers of the Common Law
Procedure Act, should not be set aside or dis-
charged. The action was brought against Signor
Giuglini, the operatic singer, to recover a sum of
£93 for expenses incurred by him at a hotel at
Paris, to which he went, accompanied by two
ladies of rather expensive habits. There was no
dispute as to the items incurred, and the only
objection related to the reasonableness of the dif-
ferent charges. It was feared that if the case
went to the Master it would not be decided until
after the long vacation, and he believed that the
other side would agree to refer it to a barrister, in
order that it might be determined without delay.
Mr. Baron Martin said he thought it was a farce
to send a case of this kind to a special jury. All
but £2O had been paid, and the dispute was only
as to whether so many francs should be given
for a dinner and other entertainments.
Rule granted.