The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-DEC. 13.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord
Campbell and Common Juries.)

COX V. THE AUSTRALIAN ROYAL MAIL STEAM NAVIGATION
COMPANY.-THE VOYAGE OF THE MELBOURNE.

The Attorney-General, Sir F. Thesiger, and Mr. Hayes
appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Byles, with Mr.
Bovill, represented the defendants.
This was an action brought by Captain Cox, the com-
mander of the steam-vessel the Melbourne, the history
of which is now so well known, to recover 4001., the
amount of salary to which he wont have been entitled
if he had proceeded with the ship to Australia, and also
for damages for his improper dismissal at Lisbon. The
defendants pleaded, in substance, that the plaintiff had
been dismissed because he was incompetent to discharge
his duties.
The Attorney-General opened the case, and related
in considerable detail all the disaster which befel the
Melbourne, from the time of her being purchased from
the Admiralty by Mr. Scott Russell, up to the time
when she was obliged to put into Lisbon, in order to
show that Captain Cox had done everything he could to
insure the safety of the ship and the comfort of the pas-

sengers.
Before the learned counsel had concluded his openini,
statement, an arrangement was effected between the
parties, that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff
for 4001.
The Attorney-General observed that his client had
come into court, not merely for the purpose of obtain-
ing the money, but also in order to vindicate his charac-
ter. The company had dismissed him at Lisbon without
assigning any cause for so doing, and he had brought
this action. Their answer had been that they were jus-
tified in dismissing him on account of his incompetence.
He had stated to them the circumstances out of which
the action arose, and they may judge whether there was
any foundation for the charge. The company were now
willing that the verdict should be entered for the plain-
tiff for 4001. • This was all in point of money that the
plaintiff could claim, but his learned friend must be
taken by this verdict to have admitted that he could not
sustain the plea of incompetence and misconduct, and
his client's object was therefore answered.
Mr. Serjeant Byles was happy to be able to release
the jury from such a long and painful inquiry as this
must have been. He had felt that the company might
have a difficulty in proving the plea they had put on the
record, but the jury must remember they had now only
heard one side, and they must not attach too much credit
to an exparte statement.
Lord Campbell—l abstain from making the slightest
reflection on the conduct of the company, but I think
it should be understood that Captain Cox is a skilful,
attentive, and stout-hearted seaman.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 4001.
TUE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON v. MORGAN.-
_ ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF A STOCKBROKER.

The Attorney-General, with Mr. H. Hill and Mr.
Pollock, appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins, with Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Hawkins, for the
defendant.

This was an action to recover 1,0001., brought upon a
bond by which the defendant had undertaken to per-
form the duties of a broker of the City of London in .a
proper manner, without fraud or deceit, to keep a
broker's book, and not to make any profit out of the
transactions in which he might be engaged as broker,
except the usual broker's commission. It was alleged
that the defendant had broken this bond, by his conduct
in a transaction with Captain lngleheld, R.N. The de-
fendant pleaded several pleas, denying in substance that
he had acted fraudulently or improperly.
It appeared from the statement of Captain Inglefield,
who was the first witness for the plaintiffs, that at the
beginning of May, 1852, he went into the City in order
to purchase some shares in the Sodlth Australian Copper
Mining Company, and as he was looking for the offices
of the company he was accosted by a person named
Wilks, who, having ascertained his business, handed
him a card of the defendant's, who is a stockbroker.
Ile went to the office of the company, but not
having been able to obtain the shares he wanted,
as he was unknown to the directors, he came out, when
he again met Mr. Wilks, who took him to the defen-
fendant's office, at 2, Copthall-court. The defendant being
given to understand that Captain Inglefield was desirous
of purchasing shares in the company, was asked by
Captain Inglefield to find out their market price. He
accordingly went out, and shortly afterwards returned
with the information that they were at A premium and
rising. After some further conversation, Capt. Ingle-
field gave the defendant a written order to procure 2,000
shares at the market price. He then left the office, and
on the following •day went back and saw the defendant,
who said he had obtained 1,900 shares, and that he
would obtain the other 100 for the next account. He
gave a written statement of the prices he had paid, from
which it appeared that the shares cost altogether, in-
cluding commission, the sum of 3,0261. ss. The last 100
shares were to cost 1671. 10s. Captain Inglefield gave
directions to the defendant to sell out some government
stock, in order to make up this amount, for which he
gave the defendant two cheques, and the scrip was de-
livered to him in the usual course. Soon afterwards
Captain Inglefield went on a voyage to the Arctic
regions, from which he returned on the 10th November,
1852, when be joined the direction of the company, at
the suggestion of his solicitor, who was also the solicitor
to the company. Upon seeing their papers and books,
he had reason to believe that the shares had not been
purchased in the market, but from the directors, and he
therefore directed inquiries to be instituted. In May
last he went again to the Arctic regions, in command of
the expedition of three ships then despatched by the
Government, and on his return these proceedings were
commenced. From the statement of Mr. Armitage, one
of the directors of the company, it appeared that the
defendant had paid him for 1,700 shares by a cheque of
3,0261. 55., and he had returned 6881. 15s. that being the
difference between the price actually paid by the defen-
dant and the price he had charged Captain Inglefield.
The other 200 shares had been allotted to the defendant
himsel„ and who had resold them to Captain Inglefield.
The Court of Aldermen had been petitioned, and,
having inquired into the case, directed the action to be
brought. Captain Inglefield had also commenced an
action against the defendant, which had been referred to
arbitration, and had not yet been decided.
The defendant's account of the transaction was, that
when Captain Inglefield had come to his office, he had
warned him against these shares ; but finding he was
bent on buying them, he had gone, by Captain'lngle-
field's consent, to a ir. Murray, who had said he world
take 20s. premium on 2,000 shares. He had then
wished to give up the business, as the shares could nei-
ther be obtained in the market nor from Mr. Murray ;
but he suggested that perhaps one of the directors might
turn against the " rig" of the market for their indivi-
dual benefit, and Captain Inglefield agreed to this course
being taken. Shortly after Captain Inglefield's depar-
ture, Mr. Wilks (who had been present at the inter-
view) returned, and said he might get some shares of a
Mr. Duppa, a director of the company, and asked what
the defendant would give him if he did so. The de-
fendant said he should have the market price. He re-
turned on the same day and said he could get 1,000
shares if Mr. Duppa was satisfied he would be paid for
them, and that they would not go into the market.
They both then went to Mr. Duppa, who agreed to sell
1,000 shares. The defendant afterwards agreed to give
Mr. Wilks Ss. 9d. premium for 500, and 10s. for 500 of
them—that being, as he told Mr. Wilks, the market
price. He afterwards went to a Mr. Buckingham, who
let him have 700 at 12s. 6d. On the following day
Mr. Armitage had asked whose name should be put in
the body of the scrip ; and, having seen Wilks, he told
him to insert the name of Captain Inglefield. Mr.
Armitage subsequently handed over the shares to him,
and he paid for them. He said that he had no personal
interest in the contract. The remaining 300 shares he
obtained from Mr. Wilks at a premium of 12s. 6d. Out
of the money handed over to him by Mr. Armitage,
87/. 108. had gone to Mr. Buckingham, 3311. ss. to Mr.
Wilks, and 1371. 108. to a Mr. Bensuson, who had
given up some of the last 300 shares. He had received
nothing beyond 1001. commission for the 2,000 shares.
Mr. Buckingham is now dead, and Mr. Wilks was
proved to be so unwell that he could not undergo an
examination.

Mr. Duppa and Mr. Bensuson were called in support
of the defendant's case.

The Attorney-General having replied.
Lord Campbell summed up. His lordship said the
commerce of this great city was much in the hands of
brokers, and it was very material that they should be
placed under proper control. Hitherto they had given
bonds for good conduct, and the Lord Mayor and the
Court of Aldermen had exercised their jurisdiction in
taking care that those bonds were not broken. It was
of the last importance that brokers, who were open to
great temptations, should strictly and honourably per-
form their functions ; and above all, that in no transac-
tion in which a broker was employed as broker, lie
sheuld derive any profit beyond his brokerage. He
ttught there were reasonable grounds for bringing
action, but they were to say whether the case made
out by the plaintiffs had not been answered by the de-
fendants. -
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Dec. 14.

N E
C
-,,,,--.
the Recorder.)
Elizabeth (Before
Elizabeth Bart,
29, spinster, was indicted for stealing
a cloth, 100 pieces of bread,
Fiarn, her master, and •
meat, the property of Edwarom spice, and a piece of
sister, two re-
Melina Millar, and Angelina
g the
out on bail,
spectable looking women, who had herl
were indicted with her, for receivin
same knowing
it to have been stolen.
The prosecutor is a gentleman living upon
perty, at Lewisham, and the prisoner, Elizabheth,
his cook. cook. Upon the 9th of this month he was watching
was
outside of his premises, when he saw the two other
prisoners come up. Millar threw a stone at the
kitchen window, upon which his cook came and let them
in. They remained about half an hour, and when they
came out the prosecutor and a policeman stopped them
and found they had two small wine bottles filled with
milk and a quantity of small scraps of broken bread
tied up in an old and not very clean cloth. They said
...._ 1)
their sister, the cook, had given them to them. They
iti were :then given into custody, and their respective
igt:_ko,4:::, :
‘l2ouses, and the cook's boxes searched, but nothing
teA„.,V . ~z...' Found belonging to the prosecutor.
0
_„
~.. The policeman corroborated this evidence, and pro-
,' i •:Y.,t4),7:duccrl the. stolen property, which consisted of a quantity
tit:l.,:i. -,,t,,#/,',3:•-of brok-en bread, the greater part in very small piece; ;
Y;,
t:.. ~)i-r--.lle bone of a mutton chop, with a small quantity ( f
4,
4
4Wrineat attached to it, and some spice, which the prosecutor
4-",!...r....1.1id not swear to.
'r.--2(;,',1,.1,(TF.: ..: Cross-examined by Mr. Parry—,l do not know whether