The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-08 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Lord LANGDALE resumed his sittings this morning at the Rolls' Court,
in Chancery-lane, it being the first Seal after Hilary Term.

DEARS V. ELWYN.

This was a motion for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and
profits of the estate of the testator, Peter Rainier, and for an injunction
to restrain the defendants, Dr. and Mrs. Elwyn, from removing certain
articles of plate, pictures, &c., from the late residence of the testator.
The testator, who was possessed of real and personal property to the
amount of fifty thousand pounds, made a will in England, in fa-
vour of his relations, and afterwards went to Boulogne, where
in the month of May, 1837, he executed a testamentary
paper, by which he gave to the wife of Doctor Elwyn his pictures,
plate, and carriage, and horses, which were of considerable value. It
was alleged by the plaintiff that the testator subsequently became imbe-
cile, and was brought back in October last to London, when a furnished
house, in which was deposited his plate, pictures, &c., was taken for
him in Lower Grosvenor street by Mrs. Elwyn, where he shortly after-
wards died.
Mr. PEMBERTON and Mr. KINDERSLET were heard in support of the
motion.
Mr. TINNET and Mr. LoFTUs Wioasm, for the defendant, contended
that as there was no dispute at present going on as to who was entitled
to the property the Court would not interpose a receiver, and that in the
present case the property was in the hands of an officer of the Court.
Mr. PEMBERTON replied.
Lord LANGDALE—I never heard a case more unsatisfactory or sus.
picious than this. I think the best thing I can do is to grant you a
receiver, Mr. Pemberton, without giving any special directions for the
delivering up of those articles, but to restrain the defendants from part-
ing with them without the leave of the Court.
There being no other motion before the Court, his Lordship rose at
12 o'clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH--(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Print.)
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY CO3IPANY—CIJNDT'S LINE.
WILSON V. EDGAR AND OTIIERS.

Mr. ERLE (with whom was Mr. Hodgkin) stated the case. It was an
action brought by the plaintiff, who acted as Secretary to the London
and Brighton Railway Company (Cundy's Line), against the defendant
and three other gentlemen, who acted as the provisional Committee to
that Company, to recover compensation for his services, also for the use
and occupation of certain offices which were rented from him by the
Company, and for certain disbursements made by him to a messenger,
assistant, and other purposes of the Company, amounting in the whole
to about 2001. A sum of 971. had been paid upon account, and two
BUM of 241. and 61. were paid into Court.
Jonathan Hitchin—l was one of the Surveyors of Cundy's Brighton
Line. In November, 1834, I was present when Mr. Curdy had a con.
versation with the plaintiff, Mr. Wilson, at Brighton.

Mr. PLATT, for the defendants, contended that some privity should be
shown between Cundy and the defendants. The defendants were not
connected with the Company for some time afterwards.
Mr. EieLE would show that the interest had been purchased by them
with an undertaking to pay all the debts and liabilities of the Company.
Jas. Austice—l was London Secretary to the Company. I became
Secretary in Feb. 1835, and ceased to act in March 1836. The office
was No. 77, Cornbill, and then was changed to 31, New Broad street.
Messrs. Pike, Morn, and Clarke, were the provisional Committee, and
they called fora schedule of the debts, down to March, 1836.

Matthew Stocks—l am acquainted with Mr. Wilson the plaintiff, and
became a shareholder in 1636. I was appointed one of the Brighton
provisional Committee, in April 183(5, and frequently visited the provi_
tional Committee in London. I met the defendants, Mr. Edgar, Mr.
Knapp, Mr. John Claudgc, and Mr. Solaire, frequently at the Board in
London. The plaintiff acted as Secretary at Brighton, for the Company.
I had instructions from the provisional Committee in London, to give
orders from time to time to the plaintiff. Part of the plaintiff's duty
was to travel about to the neighbouring towns, and a good deal of exer-
tion was requisite, as the line met with much opposition in London. Mr.
Wilson was sometimes obliged to employ assistants. The Company had
offices in plaintiff's house, which I should think were extremely mode-
rate at a guinea per week. I was on the Committee till January,
1837, and the offices were held at that time.—Cross-examined by Mr.
Gronat was associated with me for a short The, but after
that I was with the provisional Committee for Brighton. I don't know that
Mr. Cundy ever gave up his interest in the Company. I was not paid
my travelling expenses, although 121. 10s. was allowed me on another
account. My expenses, including wear and tear of clothes, would have
been twice as much at least. It was some time in 1836, I first saw Mr.
Solaire in the Committee-room. I believe the terms with Mr. Wilson
were made by letter.
A very lengthened correspondence between the plaintiff and Mr.
Fourdrinier, the London Secretary of the Company, was then put in and
read.

Mr Hitchen was then recalled, and proved that an agreement was
made between the plaintiff and Mr. Cundy, for offices in plaintiff's
house, at one guinea a week, coals and candles to be paid for extra. An
attendant or messenger was to be employed from ten to four daily.
Plaintiff acted from November, 1834, down to part of 1837, as
Secretary, and appeared always very active and zealous in the service of
the Company.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—I don't know the distinction be-
tween the old and new Committees, but the line is indebted to me
about 700/. I have been compelled to bring an action against the
Company for my services for three years, which is now pending.
Mr. PLATT objected that there was no evidence to fix the defen-
dants prior to April, 1836, when they became the provisional Committee.
Lord DENMAN wished to see some connecting link between the old
Committee and the defendants who began to act in April, 1836.

Mr. Storks proved that he had seen the defendants and the old Com-
mittee acting together.
Thomas Mills was engineer to the Company for the last two Sessions,
commencing March, 1836. The defendants stated to him that they
had given Mr. Cundy a compensation to induce him to relinquish his in-
terest in the line ; that they had agreed to take the whole of the line off
his hands, with the incumbrances. It was stated also that they were
to give Mr. Cundy 1,500/., and if they got the Act they were to give
him 5,0001.

The Assistant and Messenger employed by the defendant proved the
services performed by Mr. Wilson.
Mr. PLATT then addressed the Jury for the defendants, and stated
that he would prove distinctly that the plaintiff had notice from the
defendants that they would not be liable for any debts incurred previous
to their having taken the concern in April, 1836.
The case had not concluded when our Reporter left.

COMMON PLEAS--(THIS DAY.)