The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-19 00:00:00

STEWART V. FORBES.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
ease, which was argued before him some time since for
several days, upon appeal from the judgment of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, dismissing the plaintiff's
bill with costs. The bill was filed by the plaintiff, Mr.
J. Stewart, for the purpose of obtaining the decree of
the Court, declaring him to be entitled to a moiety of
`the admitted undivided profits made by the Great East
India mercantile house of Sir Charles Forbes and Co.
Upon the case coming on before the Vice-Chancellor of
England, his Honour dismissed the bill with costs, and
his Lorchhip this morning affirmed that decision with
costs, expressing his surprise and regret that in so clear
..case so much of the time of the Court had been occu-
pied in its argument.

LONG C. STORIE.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal
motion occupied his Lordship the remainder of the
morning.
Nothing of any interest, except to the parties con-
Qerned, came before the other Equity Courts.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

MAUNDERS AND OTHERS v. SIR JAMES WILLIAMS, THE

SHERIFF OF CARMARTHEN.

This was an action of trover, to recover the value of
300 casks, and was tried before Mr. Justice Erle and a
special jury at the last assizes for the county of Car-
marthen, when the Learned Judge directed that a verdict
should be entered for the defendant.
CurtiroN now moved, in accordance with leave
reserved, for a rule to enter the verdict for the defen-
dant for 1124 10s. The plaintiffs were large porter
merchants in Dublin, and they were in the habit of sup-
plying a person of the name of Dabid, who carried on
business at Carmarthen as a dealer in porter. The
uniform course of dealing was this :—The plaintiffs, on
receiving an order, made out an invoice or bill of lading,
and sent it with an acceptance for the amount of the
porter, but made no charge for the casks, which were to
be returned to Dublin, at the expense and risk of Dabid,
within six months, or to be paid for at invoice prices at
the option of the shippers. The sheriff came in with
_a
Writ against the goods of Dabid ; but, although
he served him with a notice that ho held the
casks as agent for the shippers, they were sold
within the six months and at ruinous prices. The
Learned Counsel referred to several cases to show that
the action was maintainable, one being that of " Farrant
v. Thompson," in which a mill was demised for a certain
period, and in which it was decided that an action for
rover could be brought in respect of the machinery
vhich had been removed by the occupier, r,nd subse-
li !iently seized under an execution. lie submitted that
would
had no more right to seize the barrels than
lil
Inseoutid have to take upon an execution at a private
1;14 , e plate which Messrs. Gunter were in the habit
letting, out for dinners and suppers.
.Ttlhe uourt granted a DoN, D.4/arrs rule.
'This action LON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY V.
is Ws,uSrtriedoOODWlN.
At assizes for before Mr. Baron Parke, at the
plt tintiff for 2061. 4:7l‘dwhen a verdict was found fur the
i Sir. serge ant S*n
why the verdict should moved for a rule to show cause
de,
Juges iu pursuance of not
be reduced to nominal
whicheave reserved. The action
!vs s brought upon a bond
fel idant as a guarantee of the faithful as
given by the de-
who, at the time
X award Goodwin, services of hit son,
bond a as entered
it do was the joint servant oaindthetheLtoh,aedon and Brighton,
South-Eastern Rail-
t he London and Croydon,
cashier at the ter-
's ?ay Companies, as chief clerk and
July,
1846, which
-.minus at London-bridge. In
after the date of the bond.).
with the exception of the c°11111)"-
,v,rne incorporated by Act of ..outs-Eastern,
Parliament with the
nk;,___,)(len and Epsom and several -lady and
under the title other companies,
tow
South
Coast Railway Company Subsequently

to the incorporation a tleficirbey arose in the amount of
money received at the terminus, for which the on of
the defendant was considered responsible, although the
committee acquitted him entirely of being guilty of and
dishonesty. The Learned Sergeant now submived that
the son had practically, atter the incorporation, become
the servant of new masters, and had much greater re-
sponsibility imposed upon him than was contemplated at
the time the bond wai entered into, and that therefore
the security could not ',old good.
The COURT refe,ed to grant a rule, considering that
the defendant could not be absolved from his security
when two of the or:ginal companies still existed Frith
the incorporation.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice WILDE,
and Justices CoLTKAN, CRESSWELL, and WILLIAMS.)

STANSFIELD ♦ND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. GLAD: TANE.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said, in this case, which was
tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the lest sittings
at Guildhall, and in which there was a verdict for the
defendant, he had to apply for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should ❑ot be set aside, and a new trial
granted, on the ground of the verdict being generally
against evidence. This was an action of trover brought
by the plaintiffs, the assignees of a person earned
Wheatley, who had for some years carried on the busi-
ness of a waterman, to recover the value of three barges.
It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Gladstane, was an
attorney, and the sea of a lady who had claimed to be
beneficially interested in the barges, and who, with her
husband, had been entitled to a moiety of the Adelphi
Theatre. Mr. Wheatley, the bankrupt, had married
their daughter in 1833. He received no portion with
her, but shortly after the marriage a sum of
8001. was raised for his use by his motber•in-law and
her husband by a mortgage on the Adelphi Theatre.
Some gentlemen of the name of Allen were trustees of
Mrs. Gladstane's marriage settlement (the Adelphi
Theatre belonging to her), and they advanced the sum of
800/. to the bankrupt, Mr. Wheatley, by way of mort-
gage, who had the benefit of it in his business. It was
suggested on the trial that that sum was intended as a
marriage portion of Mrs. Wheatley, and was never in-
tended to be repaid. The first question was, whether
a deed, which was dated on the 24th September, 1847, by
which the three barges in question were assigned on cer-
tain trusts to the defendant, Mr. Gladstane, was a real
and true transaction, or whether it was not done at a
time wheu the bankruptcy of Wheatley was inevitable;
secondly, whether, supposing it was really and truly in-
tended to transfer it, it was or was-not done by way of
fraudulent preference ; and, thirdly, whether the barges
were not at all events in the order and disposition of the
bankrupt at the time of the bankruptcy?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Take your rule.