The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGINC2.—Feb. 18.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Tut QUEEN' V. THE SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY CO3IPANY.
ASSESSMENT TO A POOR RATE.-JUDGMENT.

This was an appeal from ;;;;;;adebytheParish of
Dorking upon a portion of the Brighton Railway which
passed through their parish. That tailway had become
amalgamated with the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany, which had agreed to the payment of an annuity
for it to the orig;nal company of 41,0001. The parish
had assessed that portion of the line which passed
through their parish, on the principle that 41,0001. per
annum was the rateable value of the whole line ; and
the question was, whether that principle was a correct
one, or whether the actual profits' of the line ought to
be taken into consideration.

Mr. Justice Crompton was of opinion that in the
assessment of the rate the value of the trunk to the
main line ought to be taken into account.
Mr. Justice Erie was of opinion that the case ought
to be sent back to ascertain the relative value of the
trunk to the main line, as by the amalgamation the
Brighton had become part of the South-Eastern line.
Mr. Justice Coleridge was of opinion that the rent
paid for the line was only evidence, but was not con-
clusive evidence of its rateable value, and therefore that
the decision of an arbitrator, or of the Quarter Sesssons,
should be taken as to the rateable value calculated ac-
cording to the profits of the entire line.
Rule accordingly.
THE QUEEN V. TEE NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

-CERTIORARI-JUDGMENT.
This was a rule which had been obtained for a certio-
rari to bring up to this court, and to quash a finding of
a jury, respecting the amount of compensation due to a
certain landowner by the defendants for injuriously
affecting their land, in order to carry out their railway.
The question was whether a jury summoned for that
purpose could inquire into the existence of a right of
way, and other advantages, said to belong to the occu-
pation of the land.
Mr. Justice Erie now said he was of opinion that the
rule must be discharged, as the jury had not exceeded
their jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice boleridge, with whom, as his lordship
stated, Lord Campbell concurred, was, however, of the
opposite opinion, and thought, therefore, that the rule
should be made absolute.

Rule absolute.
kSittiugs at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Camp-
bell and a Special Jury.)
SERAINCOURT V. HIIDSON, M.P.—BREACH OF CONTRACT.
11(7. Bramwell, with Mr. Rew, appeared for the plain-
tiff ; and Mr. Watson, with Mr. H. Hill, for the defen-
dant.

Mr. Bramwell, in opening the case, stated that the
plaintiff was a French gentleman, who was engaged in ex-
tensive transactions for the supply of iron to continental
railways, and brought this action against Mr. George
Hudson, M.P. for Sunderland, to recover damages for
the breach of a contract Mr. Hudson had entered into
to supply him with 20,000 tons of iron. The plaintiff
had come over to England for the purpose of obtaining
a supply of iron for a railway company of which he was
the agent. He was introduced by Mr. Masters to a
broker in the City of the name of Bramwell, and in-
quired of hint if he knew of any persons who would
supply him with iron. Mr. Bramwell, among other
person; mentioned the defendant, who, he said, could
let him have 20,000 tons of iron, and he offered to call
on Mr. Hudson for the plaintiff. At that time Mr.
Hudson was the largest iron holder in London, having
about 40,000 tons en hand. Mr. Bramwell brought to
the plaintiff a bought note for 20,000 tons of Scotch pig
iron, at 3/. 7s. 6d. a ton. There was to be a deposit of
10s. a ton paid within 14 days—the iron to be delivered
within 3 months from the date of the contract, or the
plaintiff was to give 10 days' notice of his wish for
the iron to be delivered. In two days after this con-
tract iron rose ss. a ton, it was supposed in conse-
quence of such a large purchase. The plaintiff then
gave the 10 days' notice for a delivery, which would
expire on the day on which the deposit was to be
paid. On the sth of November, accompanied by his
attorney, Mr. Kersey, the plaintiff went to Mr. Bram-
well's office, where he saw the defendant, and he then
made a tender of the whole amount, being 67,5001.,
asking for the storekeeper's warrants for the iron. The
defendant, however, refused to take the money, and
would not give the warrants. The plaintiff then made
a tender of 10,000/., the amount of the deposit. Mr.
Hudson, however, refused to accept that sum. -Upon
this the plaintiff gave Mr. Hudson notice to deliver the
iron in ten days, and, at the expiration of that time, the
plaintiff made another tender, which was also refused,
and he then found it necessary to bring this action, and
it was apprehended that the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover the difference between the price of the iron on the
day that the contract was entered into and the price on
the sth Nov., when it ought to have been delivered, that
difference amounting to 7,5001., and that was the amount
now claimed by this action.
The first witness called was,
.Tames Bramwell, who stated that he was the nephew
of Alderman Thompson, and carried on a large business
as a metal broker, at No. 1, Royal Exchange-buildings.
He bad acted as Mr. Hudson's broker for some years.
Mr. Hudson had a room in his office, where he was ac-
customed to go and write his letters. On the 22d of
October the plaintiff was introduced to him there by
Mr. John Masters. The plaintiff stated that he wished
to purchase a large quantity of iron. He mentioned
the names of several persons to the plaintiff, and
amongst others that of Mr. Hudson, who, he knew,
had a large quantity of iron. He stated that Mr. Hud-
son was laid up with gout, and that it would be ne-
cessary to go and see him about it at Albert-gate. He
(witness) went to Mr. Hudson, and told him that a
French count was over here, and, through some influ-
ence unknown to the world, was likely to be the buyer
of a large quantity of iron, and mentioned that it would
be a good thing to sell him 20,000 tons in one line.
Mr. Hudson asked what the price was to be, and he re-
plied that the count would give 675. 6d. per ton for
Scotch pig iron, which he had said was for consumption
in France. Mr. Hudson said he was satisfied with the
price, if the count was able to pay a deposit. He (the
defendant) said, " Well, set your way clear, and get him
the 20,000 tons." He (witness) then went back to the
City, and on the same afternoon saw the plaintiff and
his attorney, Mr. Kersey. He signed the contract and
gave it to the plaintiff. (The contract was produced.)
That was what was known as a " bought note." He
sent a " sold note" to Mr. Hudson. When Mr. Hud-
son had authorised him to sell the iron he had said that
he would send his servant on the Monday morning to
see what had been done. The servant came accordingly,
and he sent the " sold note," with other papers, to Mr.
Hudson.

Mr. Watson admitted th•it the defendant had re-
ceive(' the " sold note."

Witness—There was no rise in the price of iron on
the Monday and Tuesday, although the purchase of
such a quantity, if it had been known, would have been
sufficient to produce a rise. On the Wednesday iron
looked up a little, in consequence of a telegraphic com-
munication with Paris.

Mr. Kersey said that on the sth November he had
made a tender of 67,5001. to Mr. Hudson,. who refused
to accept it. He also made a tender of 10,0001. deposit,
and then served him with a written notice. He again
tendered the 67,5001. on the 16th November, and asked
for the storekeeper's warrants for the iron, which Mr.
Hudson refused to give.
Mr. James Lawrie, a merchant in the City, said it
was the custom in contracts for three months to give the
buyer the option of an open contract. On Monday,
October 24, the price of Scotch pig iron was 675. 6d.
per ton. On the afternoon of Wednesday it had risen to
71s. 6d. cash, but it would have been 2s. or 2s. 6d. more
upon the terms mentioned in the contract. On the sth
November the price was 755. to 755. 6d., and on the
16th November it was 795. per ton. If 20,000 tons had
been purchased on that day it might have risen to 795.
per ton.
Mr. Watson, in addressing the jury for the defendant,
denied tint Mr. Hudson had authorised Mr. Bramwell
to enter into this contract, and submitted that Mr.
Hudson was not to be bound by what had been said or
done by Mr. Bramwell.
Mr. George Hudson was then examined, and said he
was in the habit of dealing largely in iron. All his
dealings had been to actual purchasers. Had employed
Mr. Bramwell. Always gave him specific instructions
on each contract. Al ways had the contract laid before
him before it was entered into, so that he could exercise
his own judgment. Recollected Mr. Bramwell coming
to him on October 22d, when he was laid up with the
?mat. Bramwell stated to hina that Mr. Masters had
Introduced him to the plantiff, who was anxious to buy
iron. After some conversation about the state of the
market, he produced a contract, showing the price of
Irnn at the time. Stated to him that he had an open
eo
ntract for 20,000 tons of iron, and would be disposed
to send that at the price he named, 3/. 7s. 6d., and that
the 0,,t,„
(e)t
was with Messrs. Coles. Said to Bram-
well,know the position in which I stand. I
cannot eater into any contract binding me to deliver in
less than three
better,' Witness
He said that would suit the
he was aware h Witness then said to Bramwell, that
and had given he had paid as a deposit 7,200/. in cash,
for 5,0001. more. Bramwell said
the plaintiff would
ee not object to make a deposit of 10s.
per ton if for
,t,h;Townlriths, and 20s. if for six months.
Said to him
contract deliverable be
less
; don't enter into any
in
aware that I never seeir than three months. You
are
amtitu article which I have not
the power of deliveri
and the 20,00b0y that time Coles' matter
will be settled,
diettons delivered." Recol-
lect all that conversation
i:fietly. On the Monday
afternoon, about five o'clock,
were contracts be the sold note.
; threw them aside.
Finding they
Looked at them o,a the Tuesda
ascertained that there was the OptZonrniing, and then
clause.
wwreolul, and told
mediately sent hie servant to trarnaL
wished to
him to tell him that the contract e.„
and con-
trary to his instructions, and he
well directly. Bramwell did not come until ti:heopWraenidl.
nesday morning at eight o'clock. Asked him
w
could have entered into such a contract, as he he
Knew he
had not the power of delivering the iron until the end of
three months. Bramwell said he would see the plaintiff
and get it put right, but that the plaintiff had gone to
Paris. Afterwards went into the city and saw the
plaintiff, and told him that the, contract was wrong, and
that he could not agree to it. Witness then asked what
the price of iron was, and the plaintiff said it was about
the same as was mentioned in the contract. Expressed
distinctly to the plaintiff that the contract was contrary
to his instructions, and he could not think of carrying it
out. The plaintiff said witness must fulfil his contract.
Cross-examined—Had only about 12,000 tons of iron
at that time on hand, and the 20,000 tons from Messrs.
Coles was the only supply he had coming in. Was ex-'Coedingly ill at the time.
Re-examined—Told Bramwell he might sell 20,000
Zone to be delivered in three months.
Mr. Bramwell having replied,
Lord Campbell summed up the case to the jury. The