The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 22.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
LUILEY V. GYE.

On the conclusion of Sir F. Thesiger's address,

Lord Campbell very minutely summed up the evi-
dence to the jury, and in so doing said there would be
three questions for their consideration. The first was,
whether the agreement which had been entered into
between the plaintiff and Miss Wagner remained in force
at the time when it was alleged the defendant had in-
duced her to break it ; secondly, whether the defendant
induced Miss Wagner to break the agreement, and
whether she broke it in consequence of his inducement ;
and, thirdly, whether the defendant at that time knew
that the agreement between Miss Wagner and the
plaintiff was then in existence. Upon those questions
his (Lord Campbell's) direction in point of law in refer-
ence to the agreement was, thrt the payment of the
3001. on the 15th of March was a condition precedent
and that, if it was not performed, she (Miss Wagner) was
at liberty to renounce the agreement. But Miss Wag-
ner might have agreed that the time for performing the
agreement should be extended, and it would be for the
jury to consider, upon the evidence, how far she had
done so, and whether the defendant had induced her to
break the agreement before the extended time had ex-
pired. The second question was a pure question of fact
for the determination of the jury. Upon the third ques-
tion, his (Lord Campbell's) direction was, that if the
defendant bona fide believed that the agreement with
the plaintiff had ceased to be binding upon Miss Wag-
ner, the seienter was not proved, and the defendant
would be entitled to the verdict. His lordship then read
over all the material parts of the evidence, and finally
left the above three questions to the jury, with the ob-
servation that, if they should find a verdict for the plain-
tiff, they ought to give such damages as would be a com-
pensation for the pecuniary loss directly caused by Miss
Wagner's breach of her agreement.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and upon
their return into court found the first two questions in
the affirmstive, and the third in the negative. This
amounts to a verdict for the defendant.
Verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—Before Chief Justice
Jervis and a Special Jury.)
BEDGOOD V, CODD.—ACCIDENT AT SEA.
The plaintiff in this case was formerly a sailor, but
some time ago he le ft that line of life, and went in
search of gold to Australia. In this undertaking he
was so fortunate as to get 1,000 ounces of gold worth
about 3,8001.; but on the way home the ship in which
he was took fire, and although the gold was saved the
plaintiff only obtained possession of it upon paying some
charges which were made in respect of it. The present
action was to recover back the amount so paid, and the
defendant in answer to the action, pleaded that he was
never indebted.

The facts of the case were shortly these. In the spring
of last year the plaintiff shipped himself and his gold, at
Melbourne, for England, on board a vessel named
the Condor ; and which vessel had on board alto-
gether about 22,000 ounces of gold, besides passengers
and a general cargo. All went on well until they arrived
near the Brazils, when the vessel was found to be on fire.
This discovery was made at about half-past 11 a.m., on
the 9th June, and in spite of all efforts the fire increased
until about six in the evening, when they sighted a
French vessel, the Charles tl'Pauline. The French cap-
tain agreed to keep company during the night, but the
fire progressed so rapidly that about midnight the pas-
sengers and crew were removed on board the Charles
A' Pauline. The gold was also removed, in which ope-
ration the plaintiff rendered considerable assistance, arid
the vessel proceeded to Pernambuco. Salvage was
claimed by the French captain, and some dispute having
arisan the English and French Consuls arranged that
the matter should he referred to three merchants, one
English, one French, and one German ; and although
the French captain had been put to but HU:6 trouble,
and although his vessel had been detained only about 12
hours, he was awarded for salvagethe large sum of 12,0001.
The plaintiff claimed to have his gold delivered up to him,
but the consuls declined to accede to his request and said it
should be sent to England. The plaintiff then sailed in the
Fay, and soon after he reached this country he found
that the whole of the gold had been consigned to Mr.
Codd, who is an army agent at the West-end of the
town. The plaintiff applied to that gentleman, who
offered to deliver the gold upon his claim in respect of it
being discharged. First he asked for 12,000/. which
had been paid to the French captain for salvage ; two-
and-a-half per cent., the consul's charge for taking charge
of the gold at Pernambuco, 2,000/. ; deposit, one per
cent., SOO/. ; commission on advance of 12,000/. at 5
per cent., 600/. ; and Messrs. Codd and Co.'s commis-
sion at two-and-a-half per cent., 2,000/., making a total
of 17,400/. This sum was paid under protest, and the
plaintiff sued to recover the part of this amount which
had been paid by him.
The Chief Justice suggested that the matter should be
arranged. It was quite clear the jury would not sanc-
tion the large amounts which had been charged. He
thought if 1,000/. were allowed, it would be ample.
Mr. Serjeant Shee said that the expenses incurred,
and which had been paid out of pocket, actually amounted
to between 1,200/. and 1,300/.

After considerable discussion, it was arranged that
1,0001. should be taken, instead of 5,4001., which had
been charged, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff
for his share, 210/. 14s. 3d.

In two other actions of a similar nature, by other
owners of gold, verdicts were taken by consent. In the
case of the "Bank of Australia v. Codd" the verdict was
for 1,896/. lis.; and in that of the "Bank of New South
Wales v. Codd " for 2,1071. 2s. 4d.
Mr. Serjeant Shee said, after what the plaintiff had
stated as to the understanding that his gold should be
free of any charge for salvage, the other plaintiffs had
agreed that be should have the whole of his share of the
5,4001. free from any deductien in respect of the 1,000.