The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-02 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—Please to correct an error in your report of my
evidence before the Corporation Commissioners. I (lid not
state " that reform was needful in the City companies ;"
but I said, " It was my belief that the Merchant Tailors
apd the other companies administered the funds and trusts
committed to their care most righteously, and it was
delightful to see continually on entering those courts, the
advertisements of gifts and bequests, &c., to our poorer
brethren."—Yours obediently, FRED. WHISTLER.
16, Sise-lane, Nov. 30.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

LA TY INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII,I DEC. 1.

PINKS V. CUBLING.-LIABILITY OF • THE .DIE3IBEIIS OF A

CLUB.
Mr. H. Hill, with another learned gentleman, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; the Attorney-General and Mr.
Watson represented the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover 807/. the
balance remaining unpaid of an account due to the
plaintiff for building the St. James's Naval and Military
Club-house. A portion of the sum due to the plaintiff
had been paid by contribution from the other members
of the club and by the managing committee. Some of
the members, amongst whom was the defendant, had
not paid their contribution, which had been fixed at 60/.
down, or 10/. a year, at a general meeting of the club,
which was held in January, 1851. The managing com-
mittee had therefore brought the present action, in the
name of the plaintiff; in order to try the question of
liability. It appeared that in 1851 the liabilities of the
club amounted to upwards of 18,780/. Before the learned
counsel for the plaintiff had concluded his opening
statement,

Lord Campbell asked whether some arrangemen
could not be effected

Mr. H. Hill said the managing committee did not
wish the defendant to pay more than 60€., his share of
the contribution.

Lord Campbell said this seemed a fair and reasonable
offer.

The Attorney-General said his client had a good de-
fence to the action, but he was quitewilling to do what
he had all along offered to do—viz. pay 601., on condi-
tion that the committee would give him a guarantee to
release him from all further liability.
After a short discussion these terms were agreed to ;
the question of costs-to be decided by some gentleman
after looking into the correspondence.
Lord Campbe►l said the agreement was very satisfac-
tory, and creditable to both parties.

GATT V. HUMPHERY.--INSHRANCE OF PROPERTY IN
WAREHOUSES.

This was an action brought by a hopfactor in the
Borough against Alderman Humphery, who carries on
an extensive business as a warehouseman in Southwark,
to recover 3041., the value of 44 pockets of hops, de-
stroyed by fire while in the defendant's warehouse, in
April, 1847, and 251., the sum which the plaintiff al-
leged he had overpaid to the defendant for warehousing
some hops on a subsequent occasion.
The defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr. Serjeant Shee, with Mr. Baddeley, appeared for
flip plaintiff ; Mr. Macauley and Mr. Bovill for the
defendant.

It appeared, from the plaintiff's statement, that in
1846 he had seen Mr. Hare, the managing clerk of
Alderman Humphery, who agreed that his (plaintiff's)
hops should be warehoused for ld. per week for each
pocket, that charge to cover insurance and all other
expenses. In April, 1847, when the fire took place at
the wharf, the plaintiff applied for compensation for the
loss of 44 pockets which were then warehoused there,
but could not obtain it. The plaintiff afterwards told
Mr. Hare that, as the plaintiff denied his liability, he
must insure the hops himself, and they must be ware-
housed for a halfpenny per week. Mr. Hare agreed to
this, and in 1848 some more hops went to the defend-
ant's warehouse. In August, 1848, an account was
sent in to the plaintiff of 591., being at the rate of ld.
a week. The plaintiff at first refused payment, but as
the defendant detained his hops, he at last paid under
protest. He had not brought his action after the fire,
as he was not then able to give evidence on his own
behalf.

Several gentlemen in the hop trade were called to
prove that, according to the general custom of the
trade, id. a pocket per week was understood to include
rent and insurance.

The defendant, Alderman Hurnphery, upon being
called, stated that wharfingers and warehousemen, not in
the hop trade, never took the risk of goods deposited
with them ; that ld. per week was the usual charge for
warehousing hops, exclusive of insurance ; and that
when hops were deposited on his wharves, or in his
warehouses, the persons to whom they belonged were in
the habit of assuring them. He believed no rent had
been charged upon the 44 pockets in question, because
it was the custom of the wharfingers to allow hops or
other goods to remain in their warehouses rent free for
one month after they had been delivered. The defen-
dant's evidence as to the custom of the trade was cor-
roborated by his chief clerk, Mr. Hare, who positively
denied that he had ever agreed that the defendant should
take the plaintiff's hops into his warehouse at ld. per
pocket a week, including insurance. Several warehouse-
men, and other persons who had been accustomed to
make use of wharves and warehouses, were called, and
stated that warehousemen and wharfingers were never
expected to take the risk of goods deposited with
them unless there was a special agreement to that effect.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said the jury must
determine whether the defendant had undertaken to in-
'sure the plaintiff's hops from fire for id. per
pocket per week. The plaintiff rested his case upon
special contract and upon custom, and he called evi-
dence in support of both branches of the case. They
must say whether or not the case he had made out had
not been satisfactorily answered by the defendant. He
(Lord Campbell) thought that no very satisfactory ex-
planation had been given of the delay which had taken
place before the action was brought, as, upon the point
of custom, the plaintiff had just as good a case imme-
diately after the fire as at the present time. With re-
gard to the evidence of custom, they must recollect that
a material distinction existed between a wharfinger like
the defendant, and a hop factor with a warehouse like
the witnesses who had been called on the part of the
plaintiff. They must judge for themselves, but he
thought the evidence greatly preponderated against the
custom adduced by the plaintiff. With regard to the
claim for the overcharge, it depended upon the evidence
of a special contract given by the plaintiff, who was en-
tirely contradicted by Mr. Hare.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.