The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-08 00:00:00

After some further conversation, the Noble Chair-
man announced that Pr. I3ucklanil would read a
paper "On Artesian Wells " at the next meeting,
and the proceedings terminated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, Nov. 7.

(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, and Mr. Justice ERLE.)

COOPER V. BLOXA.M.

This was an action for penalties under the Stock-
jobbing Act (the 7th George 11., c. 8, s. 8). At the
trial, which took place before Lord Denman at
Guildhall, at the sittings after last term, the plaintiff
obtained a verdict upon two counts in the declaration,
whereby the defendant became liable in two penalties
of 1001. each.

Mr. WATSON, Q.C., now moved for a rule, calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the ground
that the verdict was against the evidence, or why the
judgment should not be arrested. The action was
brought against the defendant to recover penalties for
negotiating the sale of stock knowing that the vendor
was not possessed of such stock, whereby he be-
came liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds in
respect of each sale. At the trial the Rev. Mr.
Cooper, a brother of the plaintiff, was called as a
witness, and proved that he had employed the defendant,
who was not a member of the Stock Exchange, but what
is termed an agent, to sell for him 20,0001. stock. The
witness stated that at the time he was hot possessed
of any stock whatever ; and on being asked whether he
ever told the defendant that he had no stock to sell,
he said that he had not, but added, on re-examination,
that he thought the defendant must have known it.
That evidence he (the Learned Counsel) submitted
was not sufficient to make the defendant liable under
this penal statute. In the next place, the defendant was
not a broker or agent within the meaning of the Act of
Parliament. He did not negotiate the contract, but
was merely the medium of employing the broker by
whom the contract was negotiated. The count also
was bad in arrest of judgment, for omitting to allege
that at the time when the defendant negotiated the sale
knew that the vendor was not the owner of any
stock ; it merely alleged that at the time the contract
was made the defendant knew, &c. It was quite
consistent with the allegation in the declaration that
at the time when the defendant negotiated the sale
he knew that the vendor was possessed of
the stock, though at the time when the contract
was made, he might have known that the vendor was
not possessed of it. The Learned Counsel also con
tended that the count was bad for not distinctly
alleging that a contract had been in fact made, or that
it had been made in England.
The COURT took time to consider.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Alderson took
their seats on the bench at the usual hour, the Chief
Baron and the other Barons being engaged, with
others of the Judges, in the court established for
hearing reserved points in criminal cases.
The Court was occupied during the day in hearing
motions for new trials, to the exclusion of other busi-
ness. The following are the only cases appearing to
deserve notice.