The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Lordship, the MASTER of the ROLLS, was occupied
his morning w►th short causes, none of which possessed any

Lnterest.

EXCHEQUER COURT•--(THIS DAY.

NICHOLSON AND ANOTHER V. FLEMING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs as assignees
of a person named Thomson against the defendant, as
executors of the late Mr. Fleming, pawnbroker, of New-

gate-street.
Mr. CRUSSWELL and Mr. BUTT appeared for the plain.
tiff, Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS and Mr. GODSON for the de.

fondant.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case to the Jury. The
bankrupt carried on the business of a watchmaker at Dar-
lington, who, getting into difficulties, he came up to London
as a respectable purchaser—purchased quant►ties of plate,
watches, and other property, which he pledged with Mr.
Fleming, the large and rich pawnbroker of Newgate-street,
who accepted the property in pledge, and gave the regu-
lar tickets for it. An attempt would be made to say that
this transaction was a mere loan of the money, but he
had evidence to produce which put that case out of Court,
for he would prove that the parties had taken interest for
three months upon the goods at th• rate of 15 per cont.

He then called.
Samuel Thompson, the bankrupt, who deposed that he
was a watchmaker at Darlington. He was in London in
the month of May 1836, when he went to the shop of
Fleming, a pawnbroker, in Newgate stseet. He saw a per-
son there acting as shopman, and offered a quantity of plate
and other goods for sale. They said they never bought
goods, but lent money upon them. He told them what he
was ; that he had too much stock, and wanted to make
some payments. He went to the shop again next day, and
asked them to go to his lodgings, and look at his stock.
They refused to do so, but told him to bring them down,
and come in by the private door. He brought them down,
and they were put into four lots—one 1001., one 251., one
201., and one 10/. ; upon which they gave him 1551., upon
four tickets. They charged ls. upon each ticket, at which
he grumbled. Two days after, on the 30th May, he went
again with a quantity of silver plate. It was spread on the
table ; they they. weighed it, and lent him 501. A few days
after he went in again, but without goods, to ask if he might
bring more goods, but the young man said he had no more
money, as they had eight shops in London.
Cross-examined by Sergeant ANDREWS.—Owed 4,0001.
when he failed, and had been in business for ten years in
Darlington. He brought all the goods from that town
except the plate, which he bought from a person in Lon-
don, all of which he paid for at the time. He believed
the name of the young man he dealt with in Fleming's,

was Shaw.
William Nicholson, son of the plaintiff, was a watch
maker in a large way of business. 'The bankrupt was a
purchaser of watches on one occasion ; it was in June 1835
to the amount of 2591. He gave a bill for the amount,
which was dishonoured. After the bankruptcy, witness
went to Fleming's shop with the tickets for the property
in question ; there were two men in the shop ; put down
two of the tickets and demanded to see the goods ; the
man said you must pay the interest, to which be
agreed. He then went to look for the goods, but came
back and said the man who owned the goods had
become a bankrupt, and the goods must be taken
out ; he would not skew' them. In a week more he
went back and wished to pay the interest, as the tickets
were nearly out, and his friend in the country, for
whom he acted, wished to secure them. After some re-
fusal, he took the interest for three months upon the 201.
and the 501. ticket, which amounted to 21. 12s. 6d. They
said they had many more goods of the same kind belonging
to the same man.
'Cross-examined—They learned about these goods being
in pawn in the country, and soon after the bankruptcy.
He went to Fleming's shop for the purpose of the action,
which he knew would be brought if he refused to give up
the goods.
Re-examined—There was no property at the time of the
bankruptcy. All the property had been parted with in the
same way, but the assignees had recovered upwards of 1,0001.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS addressed the Jury for the de-
fence, contending that under the Pawnbroker's Act, Mr.
Fleming could not possibly have treated this as a transac-
tion of this kind. It was clear, from all the facts of the
case, that the money was advanced in his character of a
money broken, and that the interest paid upon the two
tickets was applicable to the whole of the tickets ° • and if
they calculated the amounts, they would find that so far from
being charged at the rate of 15 per cent., it would amount
to the legal interest upon 2051. for three months. He con-
tended that that was the proper method in which to look
at the question, and that the Jury would not put much
faith in the account given by the bankrnpt (Thomson), who
lent himself to the projects of the assignees, by which they
hoped to take 2051. out of the rich and wealthy pocket of
Mr. Fleming, which his Hon. and Learned Friend had put
so prominently before the Jury.
The Learned JUDGa and Mr. Baron GURNEY summed
up ; and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
sum claimed in the declaration, the damages to be reduced
o one shilling upon the delivery of the goods.

KING'S -BENCH.-(THIS DAY

PRICE V. CROWE.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

(Before Mr. Justice PARKE and a Common Jury,
WEBB V. RHODES.

Sir F. PoLt.ocK stated the case. It was an action
brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, to recover a sum of
801. 3s. 4d., for business done for the defendant, in prepar-
ing the assignment of a public house and other matters. A
sum of 211. Bs. 6d. had been'paid into Court by the defen-
dant, and the action was brought to recover the balance.
With respect to the balance, the defendant had pleaded
that he was not liable.
Samuel G. Gorton was clerk to the plaintiff during the
time the business was done for the defendant. Recollects
certain agreements which were prepared between the de-
fendant, Mr. Llewellyn, and Sir John Scott Lilly, relative
to the Lilly Arms Tavern at Fulham. All the business
charged in this account was done by the plaintiff for the de-
fendant.
Cross-examined.—OppOsite one item of 91. odd, there
is entered in the margin " Mr. Llwellyn to pay this."
There was a written contract relative to the tavern between
the defendant Llwellyn, and Sir John S. Lilly, in which it
was stated that Llwellyn was to pay the costs.
• Thomas Nichols, another clerk of the plaintiff's, saw
the defendant John Crowe, frequently at Mr. Price's office.
Never saw the defendant's brother, Thomas Crewe, till the
contract was about to be signed. There was an assignation
of the public-house from Thomas Crowe, to his brother,
John Crowe, which contained a condition that the costs
should be paid by Llewllyn.
Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
contended that, from the evidence given for the plaintiff,
it was quite clear that the defendant was not liable for the
costs of the assignment.
Lord DI MAN, in summing up to the Jury, observed
that the evidence of the defendant's liability for the latter
business was very slight.
Sir F. Por.LocK said if that was his Lordship's opinion,
he would consent to a nonsuit at once.
, The plaintiff was accordinly nonsuited.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney
of Reading, to recover the sum of 141.05. 9d., being the
expense of preparing a certain agreement for a lease. The
plaintiff was the attorney of a lady of the name of Mary
Anne Knight, who agreed to let certain premises to Mr.
Rhodes of Islington. The agreement was preparatory to a
lease ; but previous to the execution of the lease, and after
the agreement had been approved of, the lessor died,
and of course the matter fell to the ground. At
the conclusion of the agreement, there was a clause
to the following effect :—" And it is also agreed, that
the said lease and counterpart shall be prepared
by Mr. Webb, the solicitor of the lessor, at the ex-
pense of the said John Rhodes." There was, .therefore, an
express stipulation in the agreement, that the lease should
be prepared by the plaintiff, at the expense of the defend-
ant. And the question was, whether this gave the plaintiff
a right to maintain an action at law for these expenses
against the defendant.
The verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with liberty to
the defendant !Tow fpr a nonsuit.

. .
Viscount Duncannon arrived in town on Thursday
pglit from Bowood, Wilts. His Lordship left his daughter,
tli fi'.g ntess of Ulerryl at llowoodi on a visit. to the Mar,
chipness of ilansd4Wrce. Lady t.!quisa blitprialqip9 and her
brother, Lord Henryf remain at Bowood. Viscount Pun-
ORM §OIPC of the Cabinet Ministers yesterday,
The Earl of Dundonald is about to proceed to
Paris, to lay the results of a new philosophical experiment
before the members of the Institute,