The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVi ENING, NOVEMBER 16, 1853.1

the Consolidated Committee, requested a return of
money spent for newspapers, and for advocating the re-
tention of Smithfield-market (a very large sum indeed) ;
these, he hoped, would be furnished as soon as possible.
It had frequently been the case that newspapers had
been purchased, when the articles had been favourable
to the Corporation ; but he did not recoliect any being pur-
chased, when this was not so. There was no special sum
voted for this purpose. The sum named by Mr.
John Wood, of 150/., for this purpose, he believed
to be correct ; and the principle was to encourage
that newspaper which gave the most elaborate ac-
count, in the way of a report of their proceedings,
just in the same way as the large public companies
were in the habit of doing, almost daily. He be-
lieved it to be the desire of the Corporation to give all
the information in their power to the members, but
there was frequently a difficulty in the whole of the
body obtaining the information supplied to any particular
committee, without a vote of the Court, and in the case
of such applications, antagonism would sometimes spring
up, and the return would not be made. He believed a
party the Commissioners had had before them bad been
paid out of the City cash, as at that time he was an
agent of the Corporation in advocating the retention of
Smithfield-market on its present site, its a market; how
much had been paid, he could not say. Mr. Bennoch
having stated the practice, as to the election of alder-
men, common council, common hall, &c., the Commis-
sioners, at five minutes past four o'clock, separated until
twelve o'clock this day, when Mr. Bennoch will go into
the financial statements of the Corporation, alluded to
above, and finally propose his scheme of reform to the
Commissioners.—Adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.

(Sittings in Banco.—Before Lord Campbell and Justices
Coleridge, Wightman, and Erle.
GOMPERTZ V. OLIVER-REGISTRATION OF VESSELS.

This was an action upon an agreement brought to re-
cover 7,8751., the price of a vessel called the Progress,
which the defendant had agreed to purchase from the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that the contract did
not contain a recital of the registry of the vessel and of
the contents thereof. To this plea there was a demurrer,
and the question raised was whether, notwithstanding
the provisions of the 8 and 9 Viet., cap. 89, sec. 34, an
agreement of this description was void by reason of the
omission of the recital of the registry. The act provided
that no transfer of a vessel should be valid unless it con-
tained such a recital.
Mr. Willes, in support of the demurrer, referred to
the previous acts, 26 Geo. 111., c. 103, and 34 Geo. IV.,
c. 68, relating to the registration of ships, to show that
the operation of the act ought to be confined to trans-
fers, and could not extend to the instrument on which
this action was brought.
Mr. Bramwell, on the other side, was not called upon.
Lord Campbell said that as there were conflicting de-
cisions, the court thought it would be the most conve-
nient course to give judgment for the defendant in ac-
cordance with the decision of the Court of Common
Pleas, in order that the case might be taken before a
court of error. He expressed no opinion on the case.
Judgment for the defendants.
coucH V. ETEET..-lINSEAWORTHY VESSELS.-LIABILITY
OF SHIPOWNEAS.

The defendant in this case is the owner of a vessel,
and the plaintiff, who is an able-bodied seaman, had en-
tered into an agreement to work in the ship during a
voyage between Plymouth and Calcutta. The declara-
tion having recited the agreement, alleged that the de-
fendant's vessel was unseaworthy, in consequence of
which the plaintiff had been unable to sleep in his ham-
mock, had got wet and become sick. A second pount
alleged that the defendant had neglected to provide his
vessel with sufficient medicine for the cure of sickness.
Both counts were demurred to.
Mr. Kingdon, in support of the demurrer, said this
was the first time such an action had ever been brought,
and it was contrary to all principle. A shipowner was
not bound to provide his seamen with a vessel which
was seaworthy at the commencement of a voyage. The
seamen might receive higher wages in consequence of
the defective state of the vessel. The learned counsel
cited Seymour v. Maddox (20 Law Journal, p. 327),
and Priestly and Forster (Ist Mees. and Wells, p. 1), to
show that a master was not bound to have premises
upon which he hired servants to work in such a state of
rep air that the servants could not possibly sustain

Mi-llward, in support of the declaration, referred
to Gibson and Small, which was decided in the House
of Lords last session, to show that the shipowner was
bound to,provide la seaworthy vessel for the seamen he
hired as well as for all other purposes.
Lord Campbell said the court would look into the
case before calling on Mr. Kingdon to reply.
Judgment deferred.

BAIL COURT-YESTERDAY.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius.--Before Mr. Justice Erie and

Common Juries.

HUGHES AND ANOTHER V. LUMLEY AND ANOTHER. -HER
MAJESTY'S THEATRE. -EJECT:LENT.

Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Untliank appeared for the I
plaintiff; Mr. noggins, Mr. Lush, Mr. Wise, and Mr.
Raymond for the defendant.
Mr. Bramwell, in stating the case for the plaintiff,
said that this was an action of ejectment to recover pos-
session of the Italian Opera House, in the Haymarket.
The plaintiffs were Mr. Hughes, an attorney residing at
Worcester, Messrs, Lyons and Barnes, attorneys, and a
Mr. Storer, a gentleman of fortune. Mr. Lumley, the
defendant, was well known as the lessee and manager of
the Italian Opera House. The other defendant was a
Mr. Fish, a person under the control of Mr. Lumley.
It appeared that each of the plaintiffs had severally re-
covered judgments against Mr. Lumley, and they had
all issued writs of extent against his property. They
had also all joined in bringing this action. As far as
he could see, the only question in this case would be
which of the plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed.
Hughes had been the first to register his judgment for
1,1431. 10s.' on the 10th of August, 1852, in the Court
of Common Pleas, and in Middlesex on the 11th of May,
1852. One of the other plaintiffs, Mr. Storer, registered
his judgment for 2,5691. in the Court of Common Pleas,
on the 22d July, 1852, and in Middlesex on the 4th of
January, 1853, and another judgment for 22,4821. was
registered in the Common Pleas on the 18th December,

1852, and in Middlesex on the 20th December, 1852, by
Messrs. Lyons and Barnes. The writs were delivered to
the sheriff; who did not execute them until the 26th Ja-

nuary, 1853, on which day they were all put into exe-
cution without notice to Lumley, according to the
priority in which they had been delivered. The inquisi-
tions were taken in the same form, and stating that
when Hughes's writ was issued there were no other
writs in the office.

Mr. Hoggins, for the defendant, submitted that Mr.
Hughes was not entitled to recover in this action. The
first question was whether the three plaintiffs, or which
of them, would be entitled to recover, and that would
depend upon the meaning to be put upon the statue of
Ist & 2nd Victoria, c. 110. Hughes' case stood in this
form : his judgment was registered on the 10th of Au-
gust and Storer's on the 22nd July ; and by the 11th
section of the statute, the sheriff was empowered to de-
liver execution to a judgment creditor, but the section,
after reciting that the law was defective in not provid-
ing sufficient means for a judgment creditor to obtain
satisfaction for his judgment, enacted that the sheriff
should deliver execution to the person seized at the time
of entering up the judgment. On looking at this it
would appear that Storer's judgment was anterior to
that of Hughes'. The 19th section provided that
no judgment, by virtue of this act, slionld affect any
lands unless a memorandum of minutes should be left
with the Master of the Common Pleas. It was provided
by the 14th section that a judgment should operate as a
charge upon real estates, &c., to which the party should
be entitled, and then it gave a remedy in a Court of
Equity. Thus it would appear Storer's judgment must
have
priority, and in that case it would be the duty of
the sheriff to have executed Storer's writ before Hughes'.
The sheriff had not delivered possession to Lyon and
Barnes, in consequence of Hughes and Storer having a
previous possession.
Mr. Justice Erle said that !the construction of the
statute must be left to the court above.
lone.thelnt
wsuabsmenitachteisd dbefetnhceesstawthitthe
regardMr Noggins would
aesof Anne, C. IG, sec. 1, that no one should tyake directly
or indirectly for the loan of money more than 5 per cent.
per annum, and the loans, &c., securing more should
be void. The defendant did not seek to set aside the
judgment on the ground of usury, however frightful it
might have been, but he said the law did not impose
this restraint upon him, that he should not obtain a
priority over other persons.
Mr. Justice Erle said that it had been decided that
this only applied to a loan upon land.
Mr. Hoggins submitted that this was a judgment
upon a wrrrant of attorney, dated the 25th of June,
1852. The advance was 1,0001., with the defeasance
for the payment of 1,1401., the whole of which was to
be repaid within two months. The learned council
then called
J. P. Hughes, who said that the sum he advanced
was advanced upon an agreement and bills of exchange.
He advanced 1,0001., and was to have 1,1401., payable
weekly within two months. That would be more than
5 per cent. per annum. That was including expenses
of the preparation of papers.and journies. There was
an agreement signed by Mr. Lumley and Dr. Barker,
and subsequently one with Mr. Gye, under which
he (Hughes) received. from Mr. Gye 5,0001. for
his interest in the theatre and for a lease. He
had to pay the • rent • 'and insurance. He considered
the 5,0001. as applicable to the payments he had to
make in respect of the theatre. Mr. Gye had demanded
the repayment of the 5,0001., because he could not give
him possession. He knew that Mr. aye did not enter
into the agreement with him in order that the theatre
might be closed.
Mr. Hoggins then submitted that Mr. Hughes' evi-
dence clearly proved that he had been paid out Of the
5,0001. he had received from Mr. Gye.
A great deal of discussion having taken place, it was
eventually agreed that a verdict should be taken for the
plaintiff Hughes, with ,leave to the defendants to set
aside or alter the verdict.