The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-15 00:00:00

WILMOTT AND OTHERS V. WLTIIERALL, K NT.

This case was tried at Westminster during the sittings after
last Term. It was an action of trespass. in which the subject
of contention was a small piece of waste land in the neigh-
bourhood of Twickenham, which the plaintiffs claimed as the
trustees of certain property in the parish for the benefit of the
poor. A verdict for forty shillings was taken for the plain-
tiff by consent, with leave to move to enter up the judgment
for defendent on certain pleas.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE now applied for a rule nisi, pursuan.
to that permission.—The Court granted a rule nisi. '

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—JaN, 12.
ELLIOTT V. THOMAS,

Mr. ALEXANDER appeared against a rule obtained by Mr.
Cresswell, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the
verdict should not be reduced to 24d., or a new trial granted.
Two kinds of steel bad been supplied at the same time by the
plaintiff to the defendant, and on the defendant refusing to pay
for them, as not according to order, an action had been brought
against him, on which a verdict was found for the plaintiff for
the whole amount claimed. This rule had been obtained by
Mr. Cresswell, on the ground that the acknowledgment of th•
acceptance of one kind of steel did not sufficiently prove the
contract for the other kind also.
After some argument, it was decided that, unless the plain-
tiff would agree to take 24/. as the amount of the verdict, and
to receive the cast steel back, a new trial would be granted.
.I.l.vuArty 13.

DAILNY V. FRANKLIN.
This was an action for the recovery of 1151. 12s. 6d., which the
plaintiff had paid for 25 shares in the South Lancashire Banking Com-
pany, which had never been delivered. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
Last term Mr. ALEXANDER had obtained a rule Nisi for a new trial.
From the reading over of the Judge's notes of the trial, it ap.
peared that a person named Gill, of Sunderland, had applied for shares
in the above Company in 1836. 100 were allotted to him, and he ob.
tained the certificates fur them. Upon the face of these certificates it
was stated that they were not transferable without the consent of th•
Directors. In October he sold the 25 shares in question to the defen.
darts, who again sold them to the plaintiff', giving at the same time the
certificates for the 25 shares, but without at any time having obtained
the consent of the Directors to either transfer. In the meantime Gill
became bankrupt, and his assignees reclaimed the shares, he being in
fact the legal owner of the shares. The plaintiff had in the meantime
settled in account with the defendent for the shares, allowing 1151. 12s.
6d. for them, which was the sum he sought to recover by his action.
Dlr. CagsswELL now allowed cause against the rule, and having stated
these facts,

Mr. Baron P&RKB said he thought the rule had been answered, and
called upon the other side to support it.
111 r. ALEXANDER said his first ground of objection was that it had
never been left to the jury to say whether at the time of the settlement
there had been any contract that the shares were to be e ;livered within
a reasonable time.

Ce•JRT said that was immaterial, as it must naturally be inferred.

Mr. A LexANtax would not press his point against the opinion of the
Court. He th‘n submitted that Gill was the apparent owner of the shares,
a•id that they were in fact transferable, notwithstanding that which ap-
peared on the face of them, and that it was notorious that they wore
in fact transferred every day.
The COURT must take the facts as they stood in evidence. The legal
effect of the words on the face of the certificate made Gill not only the
apparent, but the true owner, of the shares, and therefore they would
pass to his assignees.
The ItiVe must be discharged.

ADMIRALTY COURT, JAN. 12.

THE PERTH COLLISION.

This is a suit for compensation for damages sustained in a
collision which occurred on the 4th of January, 1837, off the
Coast of Suffolk, between a collier brig, the Arid, heavily
laden, on its voyage from Newcastle to London, and a steam-
vessel of 1,400 tons burden, the Perth, on its voyage from
London to Dundee, It appeared that at the time of the acci-
dent, about half-past six or seven in the evening, the weather
wds ?.44 " hazy or foggy," that the crew of the steamer did not
see the approach of the brig, in consequence of her having no
lights ; that the master, or some of the men of the Aridcried
c'nt to the other testel to " put her helm a-port," which was
done, though it is all_•ged by the crew of the steamer that no
such advice was heard by them ; and that, finally, the steamer
struck the other ce!ael on the larboard it is contended by one
party, on the starboard quarter by the other, and that damage
to the amount of 126/ was done to the Arid.
Mr. 13unr4Any appeared in behalf of the owners of the Arid.
The Coma', who was assisted by two of the Elder Brethren
of the Trinity House, stated at some length the details of the
case. The Court, accordingly, condemned the owners of the
Perth in damages and costs.