The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN'S BENCH.
HARTLEY V. PONSONBY.

Mr. Knowles moved for a rue to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be entered for the de-
fendant on the ground of misdirection. It was an
action brought by a seaman to recover extra wages, and
-at the trial in Liverpool, before Mr. Justice Erie, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 401'
The facts of the case were shortly these. About.two
years ago, the plaintiff entered on board the Mobile,
bound from Liverpool to Port Philip, in Australia,
undertaking for 31. a month, to assist in navigating
the ship out and home, or at any port in the Pacific,
the Indian or China Seas, or wherever freight might
offer until the return of the ship to the final port of dis-
charge in the United Kingdom. Tne ship was manned
by 36 hands ; but, on her arrival out in Port-Philip, the
gold fever induced more than half the craw to desert,
and the captain finding himself left with only 17 hands
offered to increase their pay to Si. per month if they
would work the ship to Bombay, where he expected to
obtain the aid of additional seamen. The men refused
this offer, but said they were ready to work the ship as
required if the captain would give each of them a pro-
missory note for 601., payable on the return of the ship
to Liverpool ; and, ultimately, it was agreed that notes
should be given for 401. The seventeen men then
navigated the ship to Bombay, where more hands were
obtained, and in due course the vessel returned into port
at Liverpool. The plaintiff then applied to the owners
to cash his 401. note, but the courts having held that
owners were not liable for the promises of their masters
made under such circumstances they refused to honour
the note, and this action against the captain was
the result of that refusal. It was now contended that
inasmuch as the plaintiff was bound by his articles to
work the ship under all circumstances until her return
home, the note must have been given without conside-
ration ; while, on the other hand, supposing that objec-
tion would not hold, it would be averse to public interest
to allow such contracts to be made by seamen, and
therefore the learned judge ought to have directed the
jury to find for the defendant.
Application granted.

EXCHEQUER.

HOPE AND ANOTHER V. LEEK.

Mr. Knowles applied to the Court for a rule calling
upon the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict in this
case should not be entered for the defendant. The case,
which involved a point of considerable interest to benefit
societies and money clubs, arose in this way. The plain-
tiffs were assignees of a person named Dunbar, and they
brought the action to recover 1601., the value of property
belonging to the bankrupt, which the defendant had
seized under a fi-fa, in satisfaction of a judgment, after
he had received notice of the Act of Bankruptcy.
The defendant contended, however, that the plain-
tiffs could not be treated as legal assignees,
because the petitioning creditor's debt was not due in
equity. It would appear, indeed, that the petitioning
creditor was the president of a money club, of which
the bankrupt was a member, and he had struck the
docket upon the strength of two promissory notes for
501., which the defendant had given to the club as
security for the repayment of 1001. which had been ad-
vanced to him under the rules of the society. One of
his sureties had become insolvent, but as the instalments
due had all been regularly paid, while the bankrupt
stood in the position of a co-partner with the
president and other members of the club, it was
insisted on behalf of the defendant that there was
no debt due in equity, however there might be
in law, and, therefore, the bankruptcy was null
and void. This oljection was over-ruled by the
judge who tried the case at the last York Assizes, and
the verdict passed for the plaintiff ; but there being some
doubt as to whether a party could be made a bankrupt
upon such a debt as that involved in this case, leave was
given by the judge to move the Court above upon the
point.

The Court granted a rule nisi.

MARKET NEWS-(THIS DAY.)