The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-18 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

TILE JOINT STOCK WINDING-UP ACT-TIIE AGRICUL
TURAL CATTLE INSURANCE COMPANY.

This case stood in the paper today for judgment, but his
Lord.hip on taking his seat this morning said that he had
not been able sufficiently to consider the affidavits, and he
would, therefore, postpone giving judgment till to-morrow.
THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING UP ACT-THE L,NDON
AND MANCHESTER DIRECT INDEPENDENT RAILWAY

COMPANY (REKINGT. N's LINE).-JUDGMENT.
- - -

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which came before him a few days sit.ce upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice- Chancelor Knight Bruce, dis-
missing a petition with costs, which had been presented
under the Winding-up Act for the dissolution of the com-
pany. His Lordship said that the principal ques-
tion in the case was wh€ther the company came
within the meaning of the Winding-up Act, and he
was clearly cf opinion the company came within the mean-
ing of the Act, and the prayer of the petition must there're
be granted. The result of this decision is to reverse the
judgment of. the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.

TEMPEST V. THE NOII.III-WENTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part heard appeal motion
occupied the Court the remainder of the morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
The Master of the Rolls was occupied the whole morning
with petitions and causes of no general interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
Causes and farther directions of no interest occupied his
Honour the whole morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor Klncur BRucx.)
His Honour was occupied the whole morning with bank-
rupt petitions.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGItAM.)
LUCAS V. JAMES.— JUDGMENT.
His HoNouß gave judgment in this case, in which the
bill was filed for the purpose of compelling the specific per-
formance of an agreement to take the lease of a house. His
Honour, after going at considerable length into the case,
ordered the bill to be dismissed with costs.
WILKINSON V. GODSON.—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, in which the
only question was, whether an objection taken for want of
parties was good. His Honour decided that it was, and al-
lowed the objection.

QUEEN'S BENCII.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings iu Panco, before Mr. Justice ParrEsos and Mr.
Justice ERLE.)
TIIE UNION BANK.— KEEMER V. LAURIE AND OTHERS.
This was an action against the defendant, Sir Peter Laurie,
the trustee of the Union Bank, to recover compensation for
the injury the plaintiff had sustained iu consequence cf the
improper payment by them of a bill for 421. 10s., which he
(the plaintiff) had accepted. It was an action brought by a
customer against his banker. It appeared that the bill was made
payable at the bank, in whose hands he bad but 2 45., and as
he had given no notice of dishonour, and as the bank be-
lieved the plaintiff had a sufficient sum in their hands to meet
the bill it was paid After it had been paid a clerk from the
bank called upon the plaintiff to receive instructions with
respect to the bill. He told him not to pay it—it was an ac-
commodation bill, and it was to his interest that the drawer
Should become a bankrupt. The clerk did not say it had been
paid, and esAltayourecl to get the money back agate, but with.

out avail. Lord Denman, who tried the case at the last
sitting at London, directed a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. CROW DER now moved for a rule to show eau,,e why
the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground that the
defendant had no authority to pay the bill; indeed it was
most important to the plaintiff that it should not be paid.
He held that no banker ought to pay a bill unless authority
was distinctly given by the customer to do so. Indeed
the defendants had stepped out of their way, as they had
only a snrall fund in their hands ; and if they
chose to advance the money, they did so upon their own re-
sponsibility and at their own risk.
The COURT was of opinion that the plaintiff bad been
guilty of great negligence in not giving the defendants notice
that he wished the bill to be eisbonoured. The making of
the bill payable at the bank was a clear authority for its
payment. It was a common practice fur bankers to pay the
cheques of creditable parties when their accounts were over-
drawn ; and it seemed strange that a parson thus accommo-
dated should complain of being injured. If he was injured,
it was his own fault.
Rule refus,d.

EXCHEQUER.—( 'THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
COLE V. BRADLEY AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF COUNSEL.
This case, which was of a rather singular description, was
tried at Gloucester, before Mr. Justice Coltman, at the last
assizes, when a vemict was found for the plaintiff for 1001.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now applied fur a rule
to show cause why there should not be a
new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was against the evidence. The action was brought
in forma pauperis, by a jobbing brewer at Gloucester,
against the two executors of Mr. George W. Counsel, who
practised for a great number of years at Gloucester, as an
attorney, and who died at a very advanced age in 1844. The
action was in assumpsit to recover for the services of the
plaintiff's wife in reference to the testamentary dis-
positions of the late James Wood, the banker of
Gloucester, who died in 1836, and which were de-
scribed in the particulars of demand, as services rendered
by Mrs. Cole between Jan. 1837, and August 1841, for the
purpose of substantiating Mr. Counsel's claim to a legacy
bequeathed to him by Mr. Wood. The amount claimed was
2061. 51, being at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day, excluding Sun-
days and holidays; but there was a further claim for ex-
penses, which it was alleged Mrs. Cole had paid out of her
husb..nd's money for Mr. Counsel. Some time after the
death of Mr. Wood a remarkable circumstance occurred. A
Mr. Help, of Balham Hill, Surrey, received a paper pot.-
porting to be a codicil to the will of the deceased, by
which large legacies were given to several parties, viz.,
6,000/. to the corporation of Gloucester, 50,0001. to Mr. Phil-
potts, M.P., 30,000/. to Mr. Helps, the gentleman who
received the codicil, and 10,0001. to Mr. Counsel, and various
sums to other persons. The will and the codicill were, how-
ever, both repudiated by Sir H. Jenner Fust, the Judge of the
Ecclesiastical Court, in February, 1839, but on an appeal being
made to the Privy Council that judgment was reversed, and
both the will and codicil were considered valid, and were
received. Consequently Mr. Counsil received his legacy,
out ne men soon atm., anus. Tnc yastisa were then anxious
to ascertain who it was that had sent the codicil, for it
was undoubtedly in the handwriting of the deceased,
but it had been partly burnt and defaced, and it
was understood that by a former codicil, which could not be
discovered, as much as 200,0001. had been left to the Corpo-
ration. Rewards of 5,0001. end 10,0001. were offered respec-
tively by the legatees and by the Corporation for the disco-
very of the person who had sent the codicil, but
they never Succeeded in finding him out. Various
persons in Gloucester were induced to incur great
trouble, and sometimes expense, in endeavouring
to entitle themselves to these rewards. Mrs. Cole was an
illiterate woman, not being able to write her name, but she
wes nearly related to James Wood, and, it appeared, had
made herself very buisy in the matter, aLd it was
in evidence that Mr. Counsil had said to the
town-clerk of Gloucester, that Mrs. Cole was a very
useful woman, and that he did not know how he should
have done without her. It was also stated by witness
that Mr. Counsil had said that he would give her 3001. when
he got his legacy. The Learned Sergeant stated, however,
although that she had taken much trouble in the matter,
had gone several journies to get paper and information, that
every claim she had against Mr. Counsil had been fully
satisfied.
The CIIIEF RARON interrupted the Learned Counsel in
his statement, and said the Court was of opinion, taking tne
evidence which had been laid before it sad the report of the
Learned Judge, that the question, if any, was not one of
right but one of quantity, and that it could scarcely be rigui
o grant a new trial in such a case and incur futher expense.
The application was accordingly refused.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
WINEIALL P. FETHERSTONHAUGH AND ANOTHER.

Mr. WHEATTEY applied to his Lordship for a certiorari to
remove an indictment for perjury into this Court. The
indictment had been preened, and found before
the grand jury of Worcestershire, and it arose out
of a suit in Chancery, which the plaintiff had instituted
for the recovery of an extensive and valuable farm near to
the city of Worcester, and which had been decided against
himself: The perjury was alleged to be c,,ntainad in
the answer to that suit, but the real object of
the indictment was rot to bring a guilty party
to justice, but to gratify the vindictive feelings
of the..plaintiff himself, who had kept his name out of the
indictment in the hope of being summoned on the jury to
try the case. That reason, coupled with the fact that the
indictment was likely to involve points of law and intricate
matters, the defendants were anxious to hare it tried in this
court.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE granted the application, and di
rected the writ to issue on the defendants putting in bai
themselves in 1501. each, and two sureties in 501. each.

1N RE EDWARDR.

Mr. PRASIILEY moved for a writ of conscience to bring
up the order of the Middlesex magistrates, adjudging a Mr.
Robert Edwards to be the father of a bastard child, and an
order of sessions awarding the costs of an appeal with the
view of their being quashed, on the ground that they were
bad and informal. The bastardy order was bad, inasmuch as
it did not state that the evidence upon which it was
founded was not taken before the defendant or his
solicitor, while, with regard to the order of sessions awarding
costs, it was clearly bad, as no appeal was heard. The de-
fendant gave notice of an appeal, but an objection was taken
to the form of the notice, and the objection being held good,
the appeal fell to the ground. It was clear then that no
appeal was heard, and tho Court of Sessions had, therefore
no power to award costs to the mother of the child.

Mr. Justice COLTEIDGE granted a rule nisi.
DAVIS V. LLOYD.

Mr. PEARsos applied to his Lordship for a rule to show
cause why an attachment should not issue against
the plaintiff for disobeying an order of the Court.
The case itself was an indictment foo perjury,
but the defendant being ignorant of who his accusa
was, he obtained a rule in February last requiring
the complainant to furnish him with the nature of his pro-
fession or occupation, or quality and description of his place
of abode. The rule required the information to be supplied
within three days after its service, but although it had been
served so far back as the 28th of last February, no notice
whatever had yet been taken of it.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE granted rule nisi.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice WILDx,
and Justices COLTMAN, CRISSIVELL, and WILLIAMS.)
SAINTIiII. V. II:MI:SON.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL said, in this case, which was tried
before Mr. Justice Cresswell at Chester, and a verdict found
for the plaintiff for 5001., he had to move on the part of the
defendant for a rule to show cause why a nonsuit should
not be entered, or for a new trial, on the ground of mis-
direction, or to arrest the judgment. The result of this
application would depend on the construction to be
placed on a short agreement entered into between the
plaintiff and defendant. The agreement was in these words,
" In consideration of Joseph Denbigh Sainter, of Maccles-
field, surgeon and apothecary, being willing to engage me,
the undersigned W. E. Ferguson, as an assistant to him as a
surgeon and apothecary ; I, W. E. Ferguson, promise the
said J. D. :4ainter. that I will not iv any time practise in my
own name, or thot of any other person or persons, as a sur-
geon in Macclesfield, or within seven miles thereof, under the
penalty of 5001. ; and 1, the undersigned J. D. Sainter, do
agree to engage W. E. Ferguson as an assistant
to me as a surgeon and apothecary on the terms aforesaid.'
One point which he (Mir. Segunt Channell) had to submit
on that agreement was, that the contract, supposing it were
otherwise binding, was a contract which only restrained the
defendant from practising as a surgeon during the time he
was in the employ of the plaintiff. Secondly, he submitted
that this agreement was a void agreement, upon the ground
that it was in restiaint of trade, and not supported
by a good consideration, and for want of mutuality ; and the
objection he made was, that there was no obligation on the
part of the plaintiff to employ the defendant, so as to consti-
tute a good consideration. Ile submitted that the declaration
which set out this agreement was bad, inasmuch as the con-
tract was nudum pbctum.
The COURT refused the application.
SECON VARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Porrait )
SURILIDOE V. ELLIS.

This was an action to rec,ver the suf; of 191. 15s. on a bill
of exchange, and for goods sold and delivered.
The defendant put in pleas denying the acceptance, and
also that he was indebted, but no evidence was given in
support of the pleas; but the defendaUt's attorney was pre-
sent to watch the proceedings, in order to apply to the Court
above to deprive the plaintiff of costs, the debt being
under 20/.

The Learned SECONDARY said he had nothing to do with
that question.
A verdict was then given f. r the amount claimed.
This was the only cause on the list.

THE METROPOLITAN STAKES.
The bell has rung on Epsom Downs,
The saddling's o'er, the course is clear,
As each horse can►.ers past the stand
Admirers back him without tear.
The distance tells, the course is long,
As long again as Oxford•street
Thu' ev'ry year the three-year olds
Have won this stake, at last they're beat.
Frank Butler, on that first-rate mare
Canezou, will have a struggle there;
Flaicatcher, rode by Thibinson,
Oe'rcowes that struggle at the chair.
FLATCATCHER wins, just by a neck,
With Canezou second, Lugar third.
Beware to lay against the ware,
Fur she can fly like any bird.
HORSEPICK.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
lifitscitE:TEß, APRIL L7.—Since our last report, nothing
whatever has occurred to aflhrd the slightest relief to
this market ; the general dulness has, consequently,
become greater, and the pressure of a production
not sensibly diminished by a local interrnption,
has caused a further subsidence in prices, except as regards
certain articles for which the makers are under contract;
and for these the inquiry has fallen off. No understanding
has yet been come to between the operatives and their em-
ployers at Stalybridge.
1)• LE, APRIL 16. There has been very little doing
in the piece market to-day ; few sales have been effected,
and prices have been extremely low. The wool market has
been quite as dull as that for pieces, and prices are rather in
favour of purchases.

IluDDEitsrfELD, AAxir. 17.—The market to• day varies
little in the woollen department from those which have pre-
it for some weeks past. In our Cloth Hall the wollen trade
continues brisk. We have also a decided improvement in our
fancy trade; many orders have been given out, and almost
all the weavers are fully employed. The stock of wool in
the hands of the staplers is generally reported to be low;
and persons are anxiously looking to the next sales.
LIALLFAX,A,nuL 14.—The disturbed t 3 tate of the continent

has had its effect upon our market, and the demand for
worsted goods, both plain and figured, is less active
than it was ; but prices not having risen equally
with those of the raw material, have sustained no diminution.
Yarns have receded a little in price, and the
blockade of the German ports cutting otf all
export, the shipping houses are quite out of the market. The
spinners, however, are still fully employed on old orders, and
the principal firms will probably be so for some weeks to
come. 'there is not much doing in wool, and prices are
looking downwards.
LEEDS, APRIL 17.—The market for woollen goods is rather
better than last week; and there-is more business doing in
the warehouses.