The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-12 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF GLOUCESTER.

In this case an application had been made to the
defendants, ruaeistrdtes of Gloucester, to make an
arder of maintenance on the putative father of an ille-
gitimate child. The application bad been once heard.
arid dismissed, on the ground of the absence of cor-
roborative evidence. Subsequently, another summ-ns
had been taken out for a re-hearing, but was dis-
nussed by the justices on the ground that the cause had
.stready been disposed of. A rule for a mandamus
was then obtained, calling on the defendants to
show cause why they refused to hear the application,
he party being prepared to offer additional evidence.
That, iu tact, was the question raised for the opinion of
the Court. It had been contended that no second hear-
log, in ca,_es of this descrip,ion, could be permitted; but
the Court was of opinion that the 7th and B.h Victoria.
c. 101, gave the mother of a bastard child a remedy
similar to that which existed under the previous law in
avour of parishes against a person charged as the puta-
ive father of an illegitimate child. Looking at the
,tatute, the reasonable construction of it seemed to the
Court to be that there should be a second hearing, even
though the case bad been disposed of at the first hear.
tng, upon the merits, it being open to the magistrates
to treat the new evidence with great caution. The
k3ourt, then, was of opinion that the magistrates were not
warranted in refusing to hear the case, and the rule for a
imindarnus must therefore be made absolute.
HALKETT V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE MERCHANT

TRADING AND SHIPPING ASSOCIATION.

This was an action to recover damages on an in-
surance effected on a vessel in the company of which the
defendants are directors, and resulted in a verdict
for the plaintiffs. Judgment was entered on
that verdict for a sum of 1,0741. 16s. Bi. Exe-
cution was subsequently issued against the company,
of whose body Earl Talbot was a member; and on that
execution failing of being satisfied, a rule was ob-
tained calling on Earl Talbot to show cause why execu-
tion should not issue against his property, in order to
make good the sum claimed by the plaintiff. The ground
on which the rule was obtained was, that Earl Talbot
was a large shareholder in the company, to the extent of
1,000 shares, at 501 each, which he took when Lord In-
gestre, and on which he paid a sum of 175/. On the
execution against the company's goods having failed, the
plaintiff issued a fiat, and the company was declared
bankrupt, plaintiff being appointed assignee. The debts
of the company amounted to 60,000/, of which 54,8001.
had been proved. To meet those debts, there were only
assets to the amount of 8,0001. The directors kept out
of the way, and the plaintiff therefore applied fur leave
to issue execution against Earl Talbot. The Court
having heard the arguments of counsel in the case, took
time to consider.
Lord DENMAN now went over the facts of the case,
and pronounced that the plaintiff was precluded, by the
form of his policy, from having recourse against the pro-
perty of the individuals of the company to satisfy his
claim. The judgment of the Court, therefore, was, that
the rule must be discharged, with costs.
BEAIIME, BROTHERS, v. RICKETTS.
The rule in this case was dtscharg. d.
JENKINS V. HUTCHINSON.

Lord DENMAN delivered judgment i❑ this case. The
question at issue was, whether the defendant could he
sued, who had signed a charter-party note under sale,
as agent. without having authority to bind his prin-
cipal. The Court was of opinion that the party who exe-
cuted an instrument in the name of another, he only
acting es agent for the other, could not be sued on the
instrument,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 10.
(Sittings at Nibi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE
and a Special Jury.)
BARRY v. BILL..

This was an action brought by the plaintiff. s ship-
owner and broker, carrying on business in Nicholas
lane, in the City, against the defendant, a merchant at
Liverpool, and surviving partner of the firm of Smith
and Hill, of Liverpool, to recover a sum of 5,5971., for
certain information and services supplied and rendered to
the defendant.

Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, and Mr.
Montagu Smith were counsel for the plaintiff, and Sir
Fredelick Thesiger, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Channell, and
Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a gentleman particu-
larly cognizant of the effect of the different tariffs and
rates of duties upon articles imported into this country,
and having noticed that the duty charged upon paddy,
or rough rice, was higher than ought to be taken ac-
cording to the different treaties, he communicated his
information to the defendant's firm, stipulating for
one-third of the profits which should arise from the
discovery. They availfd themselves of the information,
and ultimately, by the exertions of the plaintiff in
their behalf, large profits were realised. The firm
then refused to acknowledge the claim of the plaintiff,
and this action was brought against the defendant
to recover such share, and for compensation for the
time and labour bestowed by the plaintiff in securing
such profits. It appeared that in the year 1815, by a
convention between this country and the United States
of America, subsequently followed by others, continuing
it for c:ltain periods, and ultimately by a treaty in 1827,
continuing it in force until further notice, it was stipu-
lwted that no higher duties should be levied on the pro-
duce of the United States imported into England than
were levied on the produce or manufactures of other
foreign countries. This was confirmed by subsequent
statutes, and remained in force at the time of the agree-
ment between the parties. By a statute passed is ON id

and 4th William IV. a duty of 2s. 6d. per bushel was
directed to be levied ups n rough rice, but if imported
from a British possession the duty was to be only Id.
per quarter. By a statute of the 6th and 7th William
IV. the lower duty was ont tended to Western Africa ge-
nerally, whether British pcsisession or not. Mr. Barry,
the plaintiff, whose attention had been directed to these
matters, discovered that when the last-mentioned statute
extended the lower duty to Western Africa generally,
the same privilege of the treaty of 1815 belonged to the
United States, and that a duty of Id. per sparer ought
to be paid upon rice ii aported from that country, in-
stead of 2s. 6d. per bush. tl, which was then paid. There
were only four houses in England engaged in this par-
ticular trade—Messrs. Poster and Smith, and Messrs.
Ewbanlts and Co., of Loncion; and Messrs. Simpson and
Co., and the defendants„ Messrs. Hill and smith, of
Liverpool. The plaintiff determined to try whether his
view of the law was cone tot, and entered into communi-
cation with Messrs. Fost at and Smith, offering to ac-
quaint them with a very profitable secret upon certain
terms. The negotiation was conducted through a gen-
tleman named Coleman, and a letter was signed by
Messrs. Foster and smith, agreeing to allow the plain-
tiff one-third of the profilia derivable from the communi-
cation. A similar agree-atent was afterwards entered
into with Messrs. Ewbenlzs and Co. The plaintiff then
sent his brother with the letters signed by Messrs. Foster
and Smith, and Messrs. Ewbanks and Co. to Messrs.
Simpson and Co. and the defendants, of Liverpool, re-
the
qeesting them to agree to the same terms, viz , to allow
plaintiffturn out ne-
third
of
' tib
advantageous.
no objection to the terms proposed. Ihe plaintiff did
not at that time communicate the secret, matters not
he
e Prdoefitetsn'tia if
ut thes saidsc re
they
shouldt,
being ripe, but it so happened that the plaintiff, s
brother left by accident at, the defeedant'e counting-
house the letters of agre -recut signed by Messrs. Foster
and Smith and Messrs. Etshanks, from which it was
inferred that the defendant'. firm were perfect.ly aware
of the terms agreed to by shose firms. The plstritiff then
proceeded to try the experiment, and accordingly im-
ported a cargo of rough rice from Charlestown, but the
higher duty was charged ley the officers of the Customs.
The defendant, likewise, upon the advice of the plaintiff,
import. d a c ergo, upon which the higher duty was also
charged. The plaintiff tit' •ti m..moriahsed the Commis-
sioners of Customs, withourt success, and afterwards he
inemoriali,ed the Board of Trade, but with no better
u...cetiS. In older then :0 obtain the assistance, and in-
tervention of the Americ di Government, he procured a
cargo of paddy to be imported into tt,is country io the
name of Junius Smith, an. American citizen, and again
the higher rate was char;;rd by the Custom-house ea-
thoritrs. He then applied to Mr. Stephenson, the
American Minister, by whom the question was laid
before the Government, and the plaintiff also caused it
to be mentioned in the House of Commons; and ulti-
mately, by means of the most untiring and unceasing
exertion, the plaintiff auttei-eded in obtaining the ad-
mit•sion of rough rice from America upon payment of
the lower rate of duty upon the deposit of Exchequer
bills for the difference, and which, by the unwearied
exertions of the plaintifZ were afterwards given up,
and the personal bonds of the plaintiff and the
defendant were accepted. All these proceedings were
from time to time communicated by the plaintiff to the
def-ndant, who invariably acted upon the information
received, and a great many letters passed between the
parties, from which it woatild appear that the plaintiff
was acting as the agent of the defendant in the negotia-
tion with Government. The plaintiff never ceased in his
endeavours with the British Government, and, at the ex-
piration of six years, aftor the most untiring activity
and unremitting exertions, he ultimately succeeded in
obtaining a Treasury minute, dated August 6, 1842,
whereby the bonds were ordered to be cancelled which
had been given to secure the higher duty, and thus the
Exchequer-bills for securing the higher duty upon the
cargoes already imported by the defendant having been
returned, the defendant found himself a gainer to the
extent of about 12,0001.; but although Messrs. Foster
and Smith, as was stated, had honourably fulfilled the
agreement which they had entered into, the defendant
refused to acknowledge the services of the plaintiff. A
great number of official witnesses were then called, and a
mass of documentary evidence was put in, which
concluded the plaintiff's case.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER then submitted that there
was no case to go to the jury upon the special count,
and made several objections, two of which the Learned
Judge thought were sustained, viz.:-Ist. That there
was a variance between the contract laid in the declara-
tion and the one proved, the promise laid in the declara-
tion being that the contract should be new to the de-
fendant, whereas the promise proved was that it should
be new to the tralP, or at least to Messrs. Ewbank and
Co. and the defendant. 2dly. That the communication
was not a valuable one; on the contrary, it was false and
untrue; for, although there was in force a convention
between this country and America guaranteeing the im-
portation of paddy at the low duty, such convention, un-
confirmed by Act of Parliament, had not the force of
law, and the Custom-house authorities would not be
warranted in levying only the lower duty. The
Learned Judge was then about to leave the question to
the jury upon the common counts for work and labour,
&c.. when the parties intimated that a compromise might
oc effected, which was then agreed to as follows:—It
was agreed that inasmuch as there were four actions
pending against different houses in the paddy trade for
the same cause, a sum of 11,0001 should be accepted as
the sum due from them altogether, and in the present
action the verdict should be taken for 2,7001. as the de-
fendant's share, without costs.
This was the last day of the sittings.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 11.
A special meetin4 in ba,ueo for the delivery of judg-
ments by consent had been appinted for to•day, but at
the usual hour fur meeting, a message was received from
Mr. Baron Parke that he had been obliged to go down
to his circuit, and that some of the other Judges having
also to leave town for a similar purpose, it was impos-
sible to form a court.

CONSIS IVRY GuWiT, July 11.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
HALL V. HALL.

Dr. ADDAMS applied to the Court for a divorce, it
being a suit promoted by the wife, Mrs. Georgiana
flail, against her husband for adultery. The parties
were married on the 11th September, 1848. Mrs. Hall
at the period was staying with a friend of her family, a
Mr. Pensford. when she met with Mr. Hall, and to
whom she was clandestinely married; she afterwards re•
turned to her father's house, and they never cohabited
together. In February, 1849, they rnet at Boulogne,
where they occupied the same chamber as man and
wife. Some time after this they separated, and Mr. Hall
afterwards cohabited with a female of the name of
Batchelor, ftx which Mrs. Hall now sought for a di-
vorce, which he (Dr. Addams) had no doubt but the
Court would grant.
The Learned JUDGE said he had no hesitation in
granting the divorce as prayed; there appeared no op-
position to the suit.
N v.sA
to theuNDEns.
This was an applicationskuDEns made Court to pro-
nounce Mr. Saunders, the party in the suit, in con-
tempt, for not having paid the alimony awarded to Mrs.
Saunders.

Mr. Saunders appeared in person. He stated his posi-
tion at the present moment was very different to what
it was when the alimony was granted to his wife. He
said he was ready to obey the order of the Court, but he
had lost all his West India property, and his family
affairs were in Chancery. His wife had ample means of
her own, but he was sorry to say the money he had
allowed as alimony, and was for the support of his chil-
dren, was very improperly disposed of. His son had
been sent to St. Petersburgh for no other object than the
waste of his money and his time ; but whatever the
Courtlhe ordered
LEA nNEhDe
jwuerbatdE obey
eeid its
he direction.
hadno
p
power to alter
his previous judgment; whatever was due under the head
of alimony must be paid; and if Mr. Saunders's circum-
stances were changed, he must apply to the Court for
relief in another form.