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

COOPER V. BLOXAM.

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 wny 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. Air.
Cooper, a brother of the plaintiff, wa3 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 not 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•ex2mination,
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. Ile did not negotiate the contract, but
was mealy 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.
PRATT V. II ARDISTT—SEDUOTION.
This was an action for seduction, tried before Mr.
Justice Williams at the last assizes for Somerset. The
verdict passed for the plaintiff—damages 150/.
Mr. Sergeant KING LAKE now moved, on behalf of
the defendant, to set aside the verdict, and for a new
trial, or to reduce the damages. It appeared from the
evidence, as stated by the Learned Sergeant, that
the young woman, Martha Pratt, whose seduction
had occasioned this action, was a dressmaker, of the
age of 22 years, and that she lodged with her
mother, the present plaintiff, who is a widow, re-
siding at Shepton. The connexion between the defend-
ant and Martha Pratt appeared to have commenced in
the most casual manner. The defendant met the
young woman for the first time coming out of his
mother's house, where she had been upon some dress-
making business, and induced her to accompany him
to his counting-house, where she submitted herself to
him without any considerable resistance. On this
occasion the defendant gave the young woman some
money, and subsequently, when the connexion was
renewed, continued to give her money. Martha Pratt
made no complaint to any one as to what had oc-
curred until she proved to be pregnant, and she then
acquainted the plaintiff with her situation.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—In what situation of life
was the defendant ?
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE stated, in reply, that the
defendant was represented as a silk-manufacturer,
and it appeared he was living with his mother, but it
was not proved that he was a person of property.
Under all the circumstances, be submitted that the
damages were excessive, and he had some reason to
believe that such would be found to be the opinion
of the Learned Judge who tried the cause. Ile now
contended that the defendant was not only entitled to
a new trial, upon the ground that the damages were
extravagant, but also that the Learned Judge, in his
summing up, had misdirected the jury on two points.
In the first place, there was no evidence that the
plaintiff incurred any loss of service by the seduction
of her daughter. The daughter lived in the house of
her mother as a lodger, paying for her lodgings, and
carrying on the business of a dressmaker. It was
said that she occasionally did something in the house,
as any other lodger would do ; but the relation
between Martha Pratt and the plaintiff was not that
of mistress and servant, but the daughter lodged with
her mother as any other person might have done.
Baron ALDERSON—Very slight evidence of service
has always been considered sufficient in these actions.
Here it was admitted the young woman did some-
thing for her mother, arid the jury were rightly asked
if it amounted to domestic service.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE—The second objection to
the Learned Judge's ruling arose in this way :—lt
having appeared that the plaintiff, soon after she
heard of her daughter's pregnancy, was affected with
a vomiting of blood, and a medical man having de-
posed at the trial that this attack might possibly have
been occasioned by the anxiety and excitement caused
by what had occurred to her daughter, the Learned
Judge told the jury they were at liberty to take into
account the plaintiff's sufferings, and to compensate
her for the illness which she suffered, if they should
be of opinion that her illness was caused by the
seduction of her daughter.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The jury are always told
in such cases, that they must take into consideration
the injury done to the parent's feelings, and if the
shock to the feelings causes physical suffering, that
ought not to be excluded.
Mr. Baron PARKE—The Learned Judge's direction
appears to me to have been right on both the points
complained of. The only question i 3 whether the
damages are not excessive. They do appear to be
large upon the facts as stated.
It was then intimated that the Court would consult
the Learned Judge who tried the cause, to ascertain
whether, in his opinion, the damages were extravagant
in amount, and would grant or refuse the rule an-
ordingly.—Judgment deferred.

EXCHEQUER G'HAMBER, Nov. 7.
THE QUEEN V. HARRIS.
Henry Harris was indicted under the Bankrupt
Act for not having disclosed or discovered that he had
transferred certain property at the time of his exami-
under the fiat. It was objected that it was not stated
upon the face of the indictment that there ever was
an examination—that upon the face of the indictment
the allegation that he had disposed of his property
was repugnant—and that making a wrong statement
amounted, if to anything, to the offence of perjury.
The objections were reserved, but the trial was pro-
ceeded with, and the prisoner was convicted.
Mr. HUDDLESTON was now heard in support of the
objection on the part of the prisoner.
Mr. Coosa supported the indictment.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that for all that
appeared upon the indictment the bankrupt might
have surrendered—might have been examined the
whole day upon one head—the examination might
have been adjourned, and the prisoner might still have
had the opportunity of making the disclosure when
the indictment was preferred.
Mr. CooKE contended that this was matter of
evidence.
The LORD CHIEF Beitorr thought it very doubtful,
if the bankrupt submitted to be examined, and no
party chose to put a question relative to some part of
his property, and he said nothing about it, whether
he committed a felony. The oath taken by the bank-
rupt was, that he would " true answer make to all
such questions as should be put to him." The indict-
ment did not state that the party had been asked a
question relative to this particular property.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE would throw it out
whether the bankrupt was not bound to discover all
his property when he attended before the Commis-
sioner, although no question should be put to him.
Mr. CooKE contended that such was the duty of
the bankrupt. The indictment averred that the
prisoner had been duly declared a bankrupt, and had
been sworn and had not disclosed that ;he had dis-
posed of his property at the time of his examination.
The COURT was of opinion that the indictment was
insufficient, and judgment must be arrested.
Mr. HUDDLESTON said the prisoner had been in
gaol ever since March.
Mr. Baron PLATT said it was no great hardship,
for it was a most scandalous fraud.
The Court will sit again on Tuesday, the 20th inst.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WESTROVP AND OTHERS V. SALOMON.
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the
Chief Justice of this Court on the 27th of February,
1847, at Guildhall, when a verdict was entered
for the plaintiff for 1,3001., subject to the
opinion of the Court upon a special case,
which was to•day argued. The plaintiffs are
stock and sharebrokers, and members of the Stock
Exchange, and the defendant is a bill discounter, but
not a member of the Stock Exchange. On the 9th
of March, 1846, a person applied to the defendant re-

questing him to advance money on certain documents,
purporting to be scrip for 500 shares in the Buck-
inghamshire and Oxford and Bletchley Junction
Railway Company, one of which the defendant took
to the plaintiffs, one of whom told him it was good,
and the defendant advanced the money. On the
27th of March, 1846, he employed the plain-
tiffs to sell the shares for him, which corn-
mission they executed and paid the proceeds
to his account. Shortly afterwards the scrip
was found to be forged, and a committee
of the :Stock Exchange was appointed, who re-
solved that the holders of the spurious scrip should
have a right to demand of the sellers genuine shares,
or until such could be procured, to pay for them at
the rate of 2/. 12s. per share. The plaintiffs, as
brokers, acted in accordance with this resolution, and
called upon the defendant to reimburse them, but he
declined doing this, contending that all he was bound
to pay was the sum he had received for the scrip, and
this amount he paid into court. The question now
raised was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to
recover any amount exceeding that paid into court.
Mr. Hoggins appeared fur the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Cowling for the defendant.
The Court decided that the resolution of the Stock
Exchange committee, which was passed after the
liability to which the defendant was subject had been
incurred, could not affect the matter. This being so,
the defendant, in law and justice, would be liable only
to return the money which be had received for the pur-
chase of the scrip, and not to the additional sum which
the plaintiffs had paid in accordance with the resolu-
tion of the committee.
Judgment for the defendant.

COURT OF INLAND REVENUE, Nov. 7.
'Before HART DAVIS, Esq., THOMAS HARRISON, Esq.,
and C. J. HERRIES, Esq., &c.)..... _ .

James Calthorpe, of Thomas-street, Newington,
Surrey, was charged with illicit distillation, and also
with having illicit articles in his possession, with
intent to defraud her Majesty of the duty chargeable
thereon.

The defendant did not appear to answer the infor.
mation.

Mr. Benjamin J. Elmy, an officer of Excise, de
posed that on the 12th of April last, he went to the
premises of the defendant, in Thomas-street, Newing-
ton. He was accompanied by Mr. Brown, the
supervisor, and by Mr. East, another officer. The
front part of the premises had the appearance of a
cooper's shop. They passed through this to the back,
where they found two large stills fitted up, and at full
work, with a quantity of spirits, and about eighty
gallons of molasses wash, in a state of fermentation,
for the purpose of supplying the working of the stills.
In addition, there was the usual stock in trade of
illicit distilleries. The defendant Calthorpe said the
spirits were for the purpose of making spirits of
nitre, which possibly might have been the fact,
as he found a large pan of saltpetre in the room ;
but the spirits he seized were plain spirits. Wit-
ness told the defendant that he should seize the
whole, and make him a prisoner, whereupon he made
a most violent resistance, and attempted to run
away, stating that he would fetch his master. He
was, however, prevented by a man, when he caught
up a large hand-saw (produced) which he wielded
about with great velocity, three times drawing it over
witness's arm, inflicting each time serious wounds,
and also on Mr. East's temple, who came to his assist-
ance. This weapon was, with great difficulty, got
from him, when he immediately seized a two-handled
knife (used by coopers), about two feet in length, and
remarkably sharp, with which he made several blows
at the officers, who being unarmed, were compelled to
retreat to obtain assistance. During this time the
defendant upset nearly the whole of the manufactured
spirits, close to the stills that were at work, passed
into an upper room, and finally escaped by a hole in
the roof. He subsequently obtained the assistance of
the police, and the whole of the implements were
taken possession of. The stills were capable of pro-
ducing each 20 gallons of spirits per day. The
defendant was subsequently arrested after consider-
able difficulty, and the supervisor, Mr. Brown, was
severely injured. At the time of his capture he made
the most violent resistance, forcing his hand into Mr.
Brown's mouth, and attempting to tear his cheek
asunder. He was convicted by the magistrate in the
penalty of 301., and in default of payment, was com-
mitted to prison for three months, with hard labour.
The COTIAT gave judgment against Calthorpe in
the penalty of 2001., with the condemation of the
seizure.
Several wholesale wine-merchants were fined for
the non-renewal of their licences.