The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Mon)AY,. NOV.., 11.

DIURRAY V. THE EARL OF STAIR.
This was an action on a bond given by Lord Stair; when Mr.
Dalrymple, to the party of whom the present plaintiff' is admi-
nistrator, conditioned for the payment of 2,000/. at the expira-
tion of six months after the death of, his uncle. At the trial
before the Lord Chief Justice, two grounds of defence were set
up; first, that the bond •was given in substitution for bills,
arising out of a gambling transaction, and fraudulently en--
dorsed by a person who received them for a special purpose ;
and second, that the bond was not delivered absolutely, but as
an escrow, being deposited with Mr. Saunders, the solicitor of
Mr. Dalrymple, on condition that it should not be given to
Murray, till the death of Lord Stair. The first ground of de-
fence failed entirely, as will appear on reference to our report of
the case ; and on the second it is proved that the bond was exe-
cuted with no qualifying expressions, though it was understood
that it was to be held by- Saunders until the death of the uncle.
It was afterwards agreed between Saunders and Murray, that
the former should also retain it as an indemnity against any
loss which might arise from his own situation as security for
Mrs. Murray ; but subsequently, and before the death of Lord
Stair, Saunders yielded to Murray's entreaties, and gave the
instrument into his hands. The Lord Chief Justice held, that
as the deed was absolutely delivered, no more understanding
could be suffered to prevail so as to make it an escrow, and
directed a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. SCARLETT now moved for a rule to show cause why
this verdict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, on
the ground that no precise form of words was necessary to the
delivery of a deed as an escrow, but that if it was Previously
understood to be given only on condition, its effect would be
limited by the intention of the parties. In the case of " John-
son v. Baker," 4 Barnewall and Alderson, 440, it was holden,
that where before the execution of a composition deed, it was
agreed in the presence of the surety for the payment of the
composition, that it should be void unless all the creditors exe-
cuted it, and where the surety, at the same interview, after-
wards executed the deed in the ordinary mode, after which it
was delivered to one of the creditors, in order that he might
get it executed by the rest, this was to be regarded as a de-
livery of the deed as an escrow, and as all the creditors did not
execute it, the surety was not bound. This case, the Learned
Counsel contended, was in principle exactly similar to the
present.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that on this case.. Mr.
Scarlett might take a rule to show cause.

ABBEY V. CABS.'

Mr. SCARLETT said, that this was an action against the re-
turning officer of the borough of Aldborough, tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at thd last Assizes 'for the county of York.
He had been instructed to look at the case• in all its bearings,
in order that he might find some ground of motion for k new
trial if any existed ; but he must confess that there did not ap-
pear to him to be any. He would not, therefore, trouble the
Court on the subject.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE COUNTY OF

B,ERKS.

Mr. TAUNTON said, that he was instructed to move the
Court for a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be granted against the inhabitants of the county of
Berks, for their refusal to repair a bridge situated within the
county.. The application would, at first, appear extraordinary,
but a similar application had been madeto the Court when
Lord Ellenborough presided, against the same county, when
his Lordship directed another Bill to be preferred before a
Grand Jury, but observed, that in last resort, the Court would
interfere in the manner requested, rather than there should be
a failure of justice. Now this case was not brought before the
Court until after repeated applications to Grand Juries and to the
Magistrates at Sessions, the result of which proved beyond all
doubt, that, unless the Court would interpose, there would be
an entire failure of justice, and no means would remain of try-
ing the liability of the county to repair; if, indeed, on this
point, any doubt could exist. . ,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked what view the affidavits
gave of the liability of the county to repair ?
Mr. TAUNTON replied, that the bridge lay in the direct line
of the turnpike road, and had always been used by the public.
It was built across the river Isis, in the road from Aston-line,
in Oxfordshire, to Farringdon, in Berkshire. In 177f1, it was
erected by the trustees of the road, part of the expense of its
erection being defrayed out of their funds, and part by voluntary
contributions. In 1779 it was taken down, and the present
bridge was erected in its place. The affidavits stated that
this bridge was in Berkshire : that it had been completely
adopted by the public ; and that it had gradually fallen to decay
and become even dangerous to passengers. At the Spring Ses-
sions in last year application was made to the Magistrates on
the subject; they appointed two
.gentlemen, named Blandy
and Mills, to inquire of the state and local situation of the
bridge ; and on their report that the bridge was in a state of
dilapidation, and sitpate within the county, they made an order
for repairing the bridge, but directed that payment should not
be made until the question of liability should be decided. Some
repairs; therefore, were done, but no payment.made on account
of the expences. A bill was preferred
against
the county at the
last Lent Assizes; and though four witnesses swore to the local
situation and the condition of the road, the Grand Jury threw
out the bill. At the Midsummer Sessions another bill was pre-
ferred, which shared the same fate. Again, at the Michaelmas
Sessions, a bill was preferred, when certain circumstances oc-
curred which he (Mr. Taunton) would rather read from the
affidavits than trust himself to detail, as they were of a peculiar
nature, and involved individuals of high station and character.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Why need you state them at
all ? In the event,your bill was, I pretume, again thrown out?
Mr. TAUNTON.—Yes, my Lord..
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—YOU have stated enough to
entitle you to a rule to show cause. Do you propose to serve it
On the Clerk of the Peace ?

Mr. TAIT NT mi.—Yes; and on two Magistrates to whom
the affidavits particularly refer.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Take a rule to show cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.

The Court sat at eleven o'clock this morning, in justification
of bail, when Fitzpatrick's hail, (two actions) were opposed.
Mr. Sergeant PELL stated the contents -of a joint affidavit by
William Thomas and John Bell. _ .

William Thomas deposed, that William Lakin, one of the
bail, was not at all known, nor what business he carried on.
He did not appear-to have In worth of furniture in his house;
and the person of whom the deponent inquired respecting the
circumstances of the bail, said he owed her for one ounce of
tobacco, which he had not paid for ; and that he could not pay
his rent, until his lodgers had, paid theirs. As regarded the
other bail of Thomas Johnson, it was stated that he kept a
house of ill-fame; that he did not pay his rent.,
Mr. Justice PARK —I desire that the Attornies do not put in
their affidavits such words as these ; it is extremely wrong,
and I hope it will not be the case in future.
The Learned Sergeant then examined the bail ("William
Lakin) who answered the Sergeant in quite familiar terms,
such as " now, my dear Sir,—Lord, Sir, how can I answer
that question," which caused a good deal of laughter in Court.
The Sergeant begged he would come to the point. He might,
he said, have been out when the landlord called for his rent,
but certainly he owed none at this time; that lie had, never
been bail but once before ; the exact time, he could not say,
nor could he say the Attorney's name, which Mr. Justice
Burrough said was not material, and the bail were allowed,
on their swearing they had double the sum. Lakin had fre-
hold and copyhold property, and Johnson more than doable the
amount of 136/. (the amount of both actions) in. money, after
his debts were paid.—The bail were allowed. •
Mr. Justice PAitx—Again, I hope the Attorneys will attend
to what I have said respecting irrelevant matter in the affida-
vits in opposition to bail.

The Loyal Orange Society celebrated the
landing of Ring William 111. at South Shields, by a grand
procession from their lodge room to St. Hild's Church, where
an excellent sermon was preached by the Rev. C. Barnes, and
a collection made in aid of the funds of the South Shields Old
Charity School, amounting to 41. Bs. 9d.
The Anniversary of Guy-Faux-Day was cele.
brated on Tuesday, at Portsmouth, by salutes being fired by
the garrison and ships of war at noon.
The Newfoundland fisheries have not been so
successful for twenty years past as during the late season.
Mr. W HEELER, at Milbrook, Hants, has an
apple-tree now in his garden in full blossom.
The plant generally known by the name of the
Aloe Yucca Alifolia, is now in full bloom in the garden of
11r. GEARY, of Newport, Isle of Wight.

ACCUMULATED PROFIT. - Mrs. WEBB, Of
Crockerhill, in the parish of Fareham, bought a set of geese
nineteen years ago the last Michaelmas, of James Draper, a
carpenter, of Wickham-gate, which were hatched four years
before at Shoot-hill., Burhunt ; one of this set is still in her
possession, and has brought seven young ones each year upon
an average, and they have, been sold for five shillings a-head
one year with another. This will be found to amount to 331.
ss. But this is not the whole worth of the goose, for she.
now in good condition, and besides has brought seven goslings
a-year for many years before she came into the hands of the
present proprietor; and if they were sold at the same price, it
will give five guineas more to the worth of this productive crea-
ture, which is now twenty-three yeurs old.