The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-20 00:00:00

W .I.NTVITGE.Nag::—AIg 19.

EQUITY COUIITS.
(Before the Lord Chideellor.)
FLEMIIN' G V. SELF.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancel-
lor Wood. The question involved is on what terms a
member of the Camberwell Building and Investment
Society is entitled to redeem his shares. The matter is
of some importance to building societies, but as the
opening of the case was not proceeded with to any
great extent at the rising of the court, a report would
at present be necessarily incomplete.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
VAUGHAN V. VANDERSTEGEN.

Upon a former occasion the judgment of his Honour
having decided that a debt, contracted with Lady Dun-
boyne, a married woman, upon the supposition that she
was a femme sole, bound her separate appointed estate,
several other creditors who stood in a similar position
now applied to the court to have the benefit of that de-
cision extended to their cases.

Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Greene, and Mr.
Faber appeared for the parties.
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that every credi-
tor whose debt was contracted under the supposition
that the lady in question was a single woman, as she
held herself out to be, was entitled to payment out of
that portion of her separate estate over which she had
exercised her power of appointment.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
IMPORTANT TO SOLICITORS.

Great inconvenience has lately arisen by reason of the
solicitors of the plaintiffs in causes omitting to deliver
the papers for the use of the court at the hearing pre-
vious to the causes being in the paper for the day. The
Vice-Chancellor has frequently complained of the incon-
venience, and to-day he stated that in all cases where
such default shall be made by any solicitor, he should
order the cause to be struck out of the paper, and in
pursuance of the authority given to him by the 36th
order of the 3d April, 1828, make such solicitor per-
sonally pay the costs:

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)

HARRIS V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY AND OTHERS.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff, for the purpose of
realising a security which had been made to him of cer-
tain sums of money amounting to 6,0001., payable by the
London and North-Western Railway Company to the
mortgagor, for the execution of certain works under
a contract. The above sum, which, under the con-
tract in question, was to be retained by the com-
pany as a security for the due performance of
the works, out of the monies which they contracted
to pay, had been assigned to the plaintiff, as a
security to him for a repayment of moneys which he ad-
vanced to enable the contractors to complete their works.
Subsequently to this assignment the contractors assigned
the contract and all moneys payable thereunder to trus-
tees for the payment of debts, and particularly of all sums
which had been borrowed by them for the purpose of
carrying on the works. After the execution of the in-
denture one of the contractors became bankrupt, and
assignees were appointed, who, according to the allega-
tions in the bill, had full notice of the previous transac-
tions. An action had been brought by the assignees
against the company, which resulted in a reference, and
an award had been made, declaring that a sum of up-
wards of 6,0001. was due from the company to the as-
signees under the contract, and this sum was accordingly
claimed by the assignees as part of the assets of the
bankrupt. The bill alleged that the company threatened
to pay the sum accordingly to the assignees, irrespective
of the claims of the plaintiff and of the trustees under
the indenture of assignment, and prayed an account,
and an injunction accordingly.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. F. Webb appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Willcock and Mr. Daniel, Mr. Goodeve, Mr. Sel-
wyn, and Mr. Speed were for the several defendants.
The plaintiff's case had not concluded when the court
rose.

SUMMER ASSIZES.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHELMSFORD, JULY 19.
(Before Mr. Justice Erie and a Common Jury.)
SONVERBY AND OTHERS V. GARDNER.

This was an action to recover the sum of 1461, upon
two bills of exchange for 1001. and 641. respectively, ac-
cepted by the defendant, who pleaded that he was a
minor at the time he accepted them.
Serjeant Channel! and Mr. Finlayson were for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Hawkins was counsel for the defendant.
Serjeant Channel! said that the plaintiffs were Messrs
Sowerby and Co., who carried on the business of silk
mercers in Regent-street, and the defendant Mr. John
Ludford Gardner, was a young waan of good family, a
member of one of the universities, but wbo had not yet,
he believed taken his degrees. The action was brought
to recover the value of certain articles that were supplied
by the plaintiff's to a young lady named George, to
whom, they believed, he was going to be married, and
also to some members of the family of the defendant.
The bills in question were originally given to cover the
amount of goods so supplied, and as they had not been
paid, the plaintiffs had no alternative but to institute the
present proceedings.
The bills having been put in and read,
Mr. Joseph Sowerby was examined. He said he was
one of the plaintiffs, and that they carried on the busi-
ness of silk-mercers in Regent-street. He knew the de-
fendant from his coming to their shop with a young
lady named George. The whole of the goods which were
the subject of inquiry were supplied between the months
of November in the last and February of the present
year. Miss George was a customer in the first instance
and she purchased about 251. worth of goods, and paid
101, on account. When he applied to her for the money,
she said that she would write to the defendant for some.
She afterwards had other goods, and the defendant ulti-
mately gave these two bills of exchange in payment. A
portion of the goods was supplied to the mother and
sister of the defendant.

By Mr. Hawkins.—Witness first became acquainted
with Miss George in November. He was not aware
that she was in the habit of frequenting the casinos of
the metropolis.

Mr. Justice Erie expressed his opinion that inquiries
of this description were quite irrelevant, the only ques-
tion being whether the plea of infancy could be esta-
blished.

Mr. Hawkins said he was only anxious to show that
there was no foundation for the representation that the
defendant intended to marry the female referred to.
With regard, also, to the circumstance of a portion of
the goods having been supplied to the mother and sister
of the defendant, he begged to state that they were
ready at any time to pay for that portion, and they had
never objected to do so.

In answer to further questions put by the learned
counsel to Mr. Sowerby, that gentleman stated that the
bills were accepted on the days they bore date—namely,
the 25th of February and the 20th of March, in the pre-
sent year.

Hawkins inquired whether a list of articles, com-
mencing with the item "Apricot brocaded robe, 14
guineas," and others of an equally expensive character,
had not all been supplied between the months of No-
vember and February ?
The witness said they were.
_ _

Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant. He said he appeared on behalf of a young man
only just 21, and who did not attain that age until the
3d of April last ; and he was not instructed to defend
the action to evade the payment of a just debt, but be-
cause he felt that the plaintiff was not justified in endea-
vouring to compel him to pay a large sum of money
under the circumstances of the case. The facts were
these. The defendent had the fortune, or misfortune,
to meet at a casino the young woman who had been re-
ferred to, Miss George, and he became desperately smi-
ten with her. He was a boy of 20 at the time, and
perhaps that was excusable ; but at the same time he felt
that the plaintiffs had no right to make him accept bills
of exchange to pay for the extravagancies of such a per-
son. It appeared that when the parties first became
acquainted, Miss George was indebted a considerable
sum to the Messrs. Sowerby, and upon her complaining
to the defendant of the annoyance she experienced by
being pressed for money, he consented to give a bill for
64/. He afterwards, under similar circumstances, gave
another bill for 501, Miss George continuing to obtain
large quantities of expensive articles, and at length, upon
a sort of settlement being come to, these bills were
given. With regard to what had been stated as to the
mother and sister of the defendant having received a
portion of the articles that were supplied, the fact was
that two or three dresses were all they had, the value of
which were not more than 121. the whole of the remain-
der being supplied to Miss George. Under these cir-
cumstances he felt that he was justified in resisting the
payment of these bills ; and, whatever might be said of
the conduct of the defendant in a moral point of view, it
was clear that legally he was not responsible.
Mrs. Marie Harriet Gardner, the mother of the de-
fendant, was then examined, and she stated that he was
born on the 3d of April. 1833.
Cross-examined—Witness knew nothing whatever
about Miss George, and never saw her. Never heard
any intimation that her son was going to be married to
this person. She remembered her son bringing her and
her daughter three dresses as a present, but she had no
idea that they were obtained on credit, and had always
supposed that he had paid for them.
Mrs. Elizabeth Gibbons, the nurse who attended upon
Mrs. Gardner during her confinement, confirmed her
evidence with regard to the date of the defendant's birth.
Sergeant Channell said he had no evidence to contra-
dict that which had just been given, and he must conse-
quently consent to a verdict passing against him. He
at the same time said he was instructed to state that
Mr. Sowerby never had the slightest idea that the de-
fendant was under age.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.