The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-07 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH,-(THIS DAY.)

THE EARL OF EGREMONT V. HARRIS.
This was an action for a breach of covenant of a lease
made by the plaintiff on the 15th Nor. 1797, to the defen-
dant and three others, of certain collieries at Gray's
Swithin, in the county of Cumberland. The cavenant was
that all pits, &c., the working of which should be disconti-
nued sirJuld be filled up and levelled, and that within ens
YP.:ir or sooner of the determination of the lease, the ivhole
should be surrendered in good working condition to the
plaintiff. The breach assigned was that the defendant had
not surrendered a certain tunnel that passed through the
lands of one Bell at the termination of the lease, and the
question simply was whether the tunnel had or had not
been surrendered ? The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Coleridge at the last assizes for Cumberlaad, and a verdict
had for the plaintiff.

Mr. BLACKMAN now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a verdict entered
for the defendant. It was set forth in the pleadings, and
proved upon the trial, that the land through which the
tunnel passed was the property of Richard Bell, one of the
parties to the lease, and this was not denied. It was there-
fore impossible for the defendants to surrender to the plain-
tiff what did not belong to him—it short it negatived all
right of action in the Earl of Egremont.
Mr. Justice COLEtunGE—Suppose you have the point
stated in a case.

Mr. BLACKMAN-My Lord, it is scarce worth doing so.
It is worth nothing but the costs.—(A laugh.) Both
parties haie now discovered that the question is worth no,
thing to either.—(Much laughter.)
COURT—You may take a rule.
WUARTHY V. COLGAN AND CO.
Sir F. PoLLoex moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a verdict
entered for the plaintiff for the SUM of 4191. 18s. 9d.
The' case was .tried before Lord Denman at the last
London sittings, and the. facts were as follows : The
plaintiff, Mr. W. G. 111‘Carthy, was a gentleman re-
siding at Calcutta, in the East Indies, who had some
money in the English funds, and, by a letter, dated the
9th of May, 1832, he directed a gentleman named Caster-
ton to sell out, and after paying a draft, drawn by plaintiff
upon the house of Colgan and Co. for 3001., to remit the
balance, amounting to 4191. 18s. 9d., to plaintiff's credit at
Calcutta. Mr. easterton accordingly paid that sum to the
defendants, and received a receipt from them, dated the
20th of December, 1832, as follows—" Received.of W.
Casterton, Esq., 4191. 18s. 9d., on account of W. G.
M'Carthy, Esq., of Calcutta." The defendants transmitted
an account of this to their correspondents, Rosett Colgan
and Co., of CalcUtta, but before the letter reached the
East Indies the latter house had " stopped payment
and became insolvent. Now it was quite clear, that if
the remittance had been made in money or in bills of ex-
change the property would have remained for the benefit of
the plaintiff, and the assignees of the insolvent's estate
could not haVe mixed it up with the insolvent's general
funds. The plaintiff would have put in his claim separately,
and no doubt it would have been his. The London house
however made no remittance ; it merely entered the money
to the credit of the Calcutta house, and the question was
who was' to stand the loss ? Was it the plaintiff, who
lodged the money in the London house, or the London