The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.
COLLINS (CLERIC) V. COLLINS.
This was an action by the Rev. Charles Collins,
the vicar of Faversham (Kent), to recover from his
brother, Mr. W. A. Collins, who is a member of the
Chancery bar, the sum of 6,0001. for money lent.
Sir F. TIIESIGER, (with:whom was Mr. Hoggins)
opened the plaintiff's case; and from his statement it
appeared that towards the close of the year 1845, the
plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had been in-
duced, upon the security of:some property which he pos-
sessed, to borrow a sum of 6,0001. from an insurance
office in Kent, which sum the defendant entrusted to
a Mr. Thomas Saunders Cave, who was at the time
largely engaged in mining and other hazardous
speculations, for the purpose of purchasing shares in
a project then before the public, known as the Paris
and Strasbourg Railway Company. By a memoran-
dum of agreement, dated the Ist of October, 1845,
the defendant charged his house, No. 18, Hyde -
park-square, with the payment of a sum of 2,0001.,
part of the sum of 6,0001. so advanced by the plain-
tiff; but afterwards, when the Paris and Stras-
bourg Railway, like many other schemes started at
the same time, became abortive, the defendant
refused to pay his brother any part of the 6,0001. ad-
vanced, and alleged that it bad been advanced to Cave
who was not now solvent, with the knowledge of the
plaintiff, as a loan, and that Cave alone, and not the
defendant, was liable to the plaintiff. In order to
satisfy the jury that the nature of the defence set up
on the pleadings could not be supported by the facts,
the Learned Counsel read various extracts from a very
voluminous correspondence, carried on between the
two brothers, and running over a period of nearly
four years. The evidence adduced in support of the
plaintiff's case consisted almost exclusively of the let-
ters and documents referred to in the Learned Counsel's
statement.

Mr. MARTIN (who appeared for the defendant) inti-
mated that his defence was also founded on a very
extensive correspondence, with which, if the case
proceeded, he must trouble the jury. It appeared to
him, however, that by trying
the case to a close, un-
necessary injury would be inflicted on the feelings
of both parties ' • and he, therefore, thought this
might be spared and justice better done if the
voluminous correspondence, of which the jury had
heard a part, was read over carefully by some gentle-
man at the bar. For his own part he was convinced
both the parties acted from first to last bond fide,
although they appeared to misunderstand each other.
The CUIEF BARON certainly felt that, considering
the relationship between the parties, it was a proper
case for reference.

Sir F. TIIESIGER thought it would be preferable,
if one of the Learned Judges could be induced to
peruse the correspondence, and say whether the de-
fendant was bound to pay the sum advanced.
It was ultimately agreed, after some discussion,
that Mr. Baron Alderson should be asked whether,
under the circumstances, he would undertake to
decide between the parties, and if his public duties
prevented him the case should be referred to a gen-
tleman at the bar.

A verdict was thereupon taken for the plaintiff, in
the sum mentioned in the declaration, subject to the
above arrangement.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Dec. 1.
(Sittings in Error from the Court of Exchequer.)
RENNIE AND ANOTHER V. WYNN.
This was a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the
Chief Baron. The action was brought by Sir John
Rennie and Mr. Remington to recover upwards of
2,0001, the balance of their bill for engineering and
surveying work executed by them for the East and
West Junction Railway, of which the defendant,
Sir William Wynn, was at one time the deputy-
chairman.
It appeared at the trial that at a meeting of the
committee of management, whereat the defendant
presided, Mr. Remington and Mr. Maclean were
appointed engineers of the line, and the case of the
plaintiffs was, that the latter gentleman having re-
signed, Sir John Rennie had been associated with
the former, and that these two having done the works
specified in their demand, and having been paid a
portion of their claim by the solicitor, they were
now entitled to recover the balance. In the course
of their case they tendered this entry in the books
of the directors, under the date of the 13th Septem-
ber :---" Resolved, that Sir John Rennie be requested
to accept the post of joint engineer to the line with
Mr. Remington .....asaes. chairman ;" and also a docu-
ment which was put forward as a letter from the then
secretary, conveying to the plaintiff Rennie the in-
timation of his appointment. Both these documents
were rejected—the first, because it had no signature
of any one as chairman of the meeting; and the
second, because theretoisoaawbobvifgaelesiort no authority in the secre-
tary to write such a letter to the plaintiff, if letter it
was, which was doubtful. As to the rest of the case,
accordinglythef n evidencecian tChiefplaintiffsw whatever
refusing
srit
directed
legeytWre
dtal opiniondynti :o to
ostufhtoi
ehtreet
dthj ;pert there
layadniendtfotei
nirfipds:
defendant,
tnfawashentr
preferring
idt
nnhhe
goee.
their right of appeal to the Court of Error.
Mr. MARTIN (with whom was 'sir John Bayley)
now appeared in support of the. bill of exceptions,
contending that the two documents in question ought
to have been received at the trial, and that, even
restr of the evidence on
though they were properly rejected, there was an
amplecasethe
opinionm ade out
of the
taken as to the liability of the defendant to the claim
of the plaintiffs. in the
euy
ought to have been
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared (with Mr.
Welaby) for the defendant, and contended that the
direction below was quite correct, and that the two
documents were properly rejected, as there was no
evidence whatever to connect the defendant with them.
As to the entry of the resolution, it did not appear
that any meeting had ever been held on the 13th of
September, or that the defendant was present or knew
of any other engineers than Remington and Maclean ;
and as to the letter of the secretary, that was not a
letter to the plaintiff, but a mere memorandum, and
certainly was not an act within the ordinary scope of
a secretary's duties. Both of these had rightly been
rejected; and that being so, there was really nothing
else at all in the case to go to the jury.
Mr. Justice PATTESON was of opinion that the de-
fendant was entitled to the judgment of the Court.
The documents were properly rejected by the Chief
Baron, and his ruling was perfectly correct as to the
true character of the other facts proved by the plain-
tiffs.
Judgment for the defendant in error.