The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 16.

BAIL COURT.
GOUGH V. COBB.

Mr. Ed win James and Mr. Phinn were 'counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Boville for the defendant.
The plaintiff was an auctioneer residing at Sunbury.
The defendant formerly drove the Sunbury coach, but
had some property left him, a portion of which consisted
of 14 acres of land, situate at Feltham. The defendant
made up his mind to sell the land, and applied to the
plaintiff on the subject, and the plaintiff made nn entry
in his book, which he read to the defendant, in these
terms—" Instructed by Mr. Cobb to sell his land for
9501., Mr. Cobb to pay a commission of 21 per cent.'
To this the defendant agreed. The plaintiff caused
handbills, describing the property and offer for sale, to
be printed and circulated, and, and after many offers had
been made, he obtained a purchaser at the 9501. The
defendant had then altered his mind and would not sell,
and when the plaintiff claimed his commission he re-
fused to pay it, but offered to give him 31. if he would
give him a receipt for 231. 15s.
The defence was, that the defendant had not given
the plaintiff any instructions to sell the property.
Tile parties were called, and they contradicted each
other in the most positive terms.
The jury, without hearing the summing up, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
The learned Judge said he approved of the verdict,
without at all imputing perjury.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
HAZLITT V. VIZETELLY-NEW TRIAL.

Mr. Macnamara moved in this case to set aside the
verdict and have a new trial, upon payment of the costs
of the day, upon the ground that the defendant's attor-
ney was misled as to the time that the trial was to take
place. The action was to recover a sum of money for
translating the Life of Louis the 17th ; and it came on
to be heard on Monday last at Guildhall, when it was
tried as an undefended cause, and a verdict given for
the plaintiff for 75/. It unfortunately happened that
on the morning of Monday it was stated in the Times
that the court would sit at 11 o'clock, instead of the
correct time, 10 o'clock, and the consequence was that
the defendant's attorney did not arrive at Guildhall un-
til half-past 10 o'clock, and then he found that the cause
had been tried in his absence.

The Chief Justice—lt was printed very plainly in the
sittings paper that the court would sit at 10 o'clock, the
correct time. Suppose the Times had said that the
sourt would sit in Lincoln's-inn-hall, and the attorney
had gone there, would that be ground for a new trial ?
Mr. Macuamara, said that his client was prepared to
pay the costs of the day, and there was an affidavit of
merits.

Mr. Justice Maule—The full courts had recently been
in the habit of adjourning from Saturday until Monday
at 11 o'clock, because some gentlemen at the bar, and
he believed some of the judges—but he was not so sure
about that had country houses. (A. laugh.) Now,
that reason would apply just as much to the sittings at
Guildhall, unless the gentlemen there had their country
houses near at hand— asat Hoxton. (A laugh.)
The Chief Justice said that not meeting until eleven
o'clock on Mondays they had returned in part to the old
practice, which was to adjourn on Saturday at 3 until
Monday at 11 q and as to one court, a reason was given
for this, the Chief Baron saying that "the gentlemen
who practised there had country houses." (A laugh.)
Mr. Watson, Q.C., appeared to show cause in the first
instance, and he submitted that the affidavit was not
sufficient. It stated that the attorney had intended to
instruct counsel in court ; so that it seemed that counsel,
like another class of persons, could be called off the
stand at a moment's notice. (A laugh.)
The Chief Justice said be thought that there should
be a new trial, upon payment of the costs of the day.
Rule absolute for a new trial accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
SPECIAL PAPER.

THE EASTERN UNION RAILWAY COMPANY V. COCHRANE,

This was an action against the defendant-on a bond
for 2001. given by him to secure the fidelity and honesty
of one Coles, a clerk to the Eastern Union Railway
Company before its amalgamation with the Bury and
Ipswich Company, when the two original companies
were by an act, 11th and 12th of Victoria, chap. 174,
dissolved and reconstituted and amalgamated under the
title of "the Eastern Union Railway Company." By
one of the clauses of that act it is provided, inter alia,
that all " bonds" given to either of the dissolved com-
panies shall enure to the benefit of the new company,
and shall be read as if the title of the new company had
been inserted in them, instead of that of the old com-
panies respectively. It appeared that the clerk con-
tinued to discharge his duties under the amalgamated
companies as before, and that he ultimately absconded
with some of the funds received by virtue of such ser-
vice, and thereupon this action was brought on the joint
bond given by him and the defendant to the original
company. To the declaration setting forth these facts
the defendant generally demurred, and now
Mr. O'Malley appeared in support of the demurrer,
contending that the clause transferring all contracts and
bonds from the old company to the new was to be con-
fined to those cases in which the contract was in such
a state before the dissolution as that the old company, if
it continued, would have had a right to sue ; but that it
ought not to be extended to include cases such as this,
where no liability arose, for there had not been any
breach in the time of the old company.
Mr. Bramwell, on the other hand, relied on the words
of the act, which gave certain rights to the new com-
pany, and insisted that the Court could not pay any at-
tention to the hypothetical hardships or cases of his
learned friend.

The Court was of opinion that the plaintiffs were
entitled to its judgment for the reasons assigned. The
words of the act were so clear that it was impossible to
draw the distinction sought to be put on them in favour
of the defendant by his learned counsel, and, therefore,
there must be judgment for the plaintiffs.
Judgment accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

IN RE LORD HUNTINGTOWER.

To-day was appointed for consideration of the certifi-
cate in this case, which was appointed to be heard at one
o'clock, but was not called on until some time after,.in
consequence of the learned commissioner being engaged
at a private meeting.
Mr. Lucas, counsel on part of the assignees, did not
object 'to a certificate being granted, on the ground that
the estate would eventually clear off the whole of the
debts.

The present bankruptcy arose principally in conse-
quence of the renewal of debts under a formerjbank-
ruptcy and insolvency.
His Honour considered that injustice would be done
to the new creditors by renewing the old debts, and
suspended the certificate for six months for not keeping
books which every person rendering himself liable to the
bankrupt laws was bound to do. He (his Honour)
would take time to consider whether he ought to im-
pose terms on the subsequently acquired property.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
A FASHIONABLE FOREIGN COUNT IN DIFFICULTY.-
WRIGHT. V. THE COUNT ST. JEAN.

The plaintiff is a livery stable keeper, in Eldon-place,
Hyde-park, and defendant was stated to be a foreign
count, residing at the time the debt was contracted in
Conduit-street, Bond-street. The claim was fain/. 18s.,
the balance of an account for the hire of carriages and
horses.

Evidence was adduced to prove the hiring and use o;
he carriages, and also a promise to pay the balance o:
,he account.

Defendant having suffered judgment to go by default,
was given against him for the amount claimed.
This was the only case in the list.