The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LO DON, THURSDAY EV:ENING,_ NOVEMBER 1L 1047.

Mr. CftownEat wished to know whether the Court
would receive this as evidence.

Mr. Baron PLATT said that he thought it was evi-
dence to prove that the plaintiff in the action was a
mere puppet.

15owley was next called, yaw corroborated
the account of the circumstance deposed to by the
last witness.

Mr. Lewis was then called, and cross-examined by
Mr. CRowDER—Mr. Gadelerer brought the bill to
him requesting him to discount it. The plaintiff had
upon several occasions advanced money upon bills
which he had taken to him. Plaintiff gave witness
231. 10s. for the bill, which sum he handed over to
Mr. Gadderer. It was about three weeks after the
date of the bill that he got the money for it. At
the request of Mr. W. Coyle, he consented to wait
for three or four days after the bill was due before
he took any proceedings upon the bill, upon the re-
presentation of W. Coyle that the bill was given to
him by the defendant as an accommodation bill, he
having previously assisted him with money, in con-
sequence of his being in some way or other mixed up
with the frauds in the Custom-house.
Mr. Baron PLATT thought that this last evidence
if received by the jury was decisive of the case, as it
clearly proved that consideration had passed for the
bill from the plaintiff. With respect to what had
taken place previously to the bill coming into his
possession, he had of course nothing to do, and there
was no proof that he had any notice of the parties
having become improperly possessed of it. The
simple question for the jury to decide therefore was,
whether they considered the evidence of Mr. Lewis,
the attorney, correct or not. With respect to the de-
fendant not having received any consideration for his
acceptance, he must look to the parties by whom he
had been defrauded for restitution.
The jury, after consulting together for a short time,
gave it as their opinion that the whole of the evi-
dence was of such a conflicting character, that they
could not believe any of it, with the exception of that
of Mr. Lewis.

A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Mr.
Justice CRESWELL and a Common Jury.)
CATTLIN V. BARKER.
Mr. E. James and Mr. Lush were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Willes for
the defendant.
This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas M.
Cattlin, an attorney, residing in Ely-place, Holborn,
to recover from Mr. Charles Barker, an advertising
agent carrying on business in Birchin-lane,
2691. 18s. sd. for work and labour done under
the following circumstances :—During the period
while so many railway speculations were so rifts, the
defendant appears to have been very extensively en-
gaged in his business in inserting the prospectuses
of many of those speculations in the different news-
papers. Among other companies for whom he acted
in this capacity was the Northern and Eastern
Counties Junction Railway, by the provisional com-
mitteemen of which he was employed to procure the
advertisement of their prospectus. In this way he
expended, on behalf of the company, 7971. odd.
Like many other kindred bubbles, the Northern
and Eastern Counties Junction Railway project
died away, the provisional committeemen, one by one
departed, leaving the creditors to fix on whom they
might for the liquidation of their claims against the
company. It having been ascertained that the liabi-
lities of the company might be discharged if each of
the provisional committeemen contributed the sum of
25/., several of them contributed each that sum, but
others of them refusing to do so, Mr. Condell, an
attorney residing in Copthall-court, the solicitor to
the company, prevailed upon the defendant Barker,
in consideration of his large demand upon the provi-
sional directors, and with the view the more certainly
and speedily to insure its liquidation, to sue the de-
faulters for the payment of their respective contribu-
tions. Accordingly, in 1846, actions at the suit of
the present defendant were brought, and tried at the
Maidstone Assizes, severally against Messrs. Thomp-
son and Stead, two of the provisional committeemen.
In the action against Thompson the present defendant
obtained a verdict, which, however, has not yet
brought any money into his pocket, whilst he was
nonsuited, and had costs to pay in that against
Stead. The plaintiff Cattlin was employed as the
attorney to conduct those actions, and it was for the
recovery of his bill that the present action was
brought.
For the plaintiff, it was proved by his managing
clerk, to whom the management of the business had
been intrusted, that while the actions were pending
the defendant called and conferred with him several
times thereupon, and instructed him from time to time
in the business ; that the defendant paid to the plain-
tiff's clerk the cost of the nonsuit in the action
against Stead, and that on being applied to subse-
quently for payment of the present demand, the de-
fendant called at the plaintiff's office, and said he could
not give the latter any money then, owing to so large
a sum of money standing unpaid by the different
railway companies who were indebted to him. On
the 22d of June last, the day before the present action
was brought, a further application was made to the
defendant for payment of the plaintiff's bill, when he
shrugged his shoulders and told the plaintiff that he
must not apply to him again, but must look to the
company for payment.
For the defendant, on cross-examination, it was
the
frien fidrst of instance,
his,
in.
elicited from the plaintiff's clerk, that Mr. Condell,
gthaevestohlieciptolarintotiff,thewchoom.wapasny, in
an
oldstructions for bringing the actions, and not the dfen-
dant, though they were carried on in the defendant's
name, and though the latter afterwards went to con-
sult with and instruct the plaintiff in the business re-
lating to them.
Mr. HUMFREY, for the defendant, stated, that he
(the defendant) had intrusted the company to the
amount of 7971., all of which was money actually
paid out of his own pocket for advertisements in-
serted in the daily and the other different newspapers.
The defendant had been led by Mr. Condell, the
y, to believe that if he would
to sue the defaulting corn-
defendant's) name, employing
onlyrs
no il
ti
tc
ei
allowtmer n to i
ntt
the
ee
sc
companyo(mthp
(the 's)
Mr. Cattlin, the plaintiff, as their attorney, that
they would get more than enough to pay all the
creditors, and the defendant among the rest. The
defendant was in this situation :—His own bill
agai
unpaidnstthecopany, amounting to 7971. 17s. 6d ,
remained ; he had been compelled to pay the
costs in Mr. Stead's action ; the present action for
269/. was suspended over his head; and he was'
suing Lord Beauclerk and Mr. Harrison, two of the
provisional committeemen, at the same time. He
(Mr. Humfrey) submitted that Mr. Condell was the
real defendant to the action; that it was he, and
not the defendant, who employed the plaintiff in the
business for which payment was now sought from the
defendant. The question Was, whether the work had
been done by
a the plaintiff for the defendant in the
ordinary course of business, looking to the defendant
as his client,
expecting
him to pay. If that were
nd
ao, then the defendant must pay, however hard it
might be upon him. But if, on the other hand, the
plaintiff never did look to the defendant, but, on the
contrary, had his instructions from Mr. Condell, as
the solicitor of the company, in that case the de-
fendant was not liable, and the plaintiff ought to look
to his " old friend," Mr. Condell, who employed him,
for payment.
Mr. JAMES briefly replied; and
His LORDSHIP proceeded to sum up the case. The
question, he said, was simply whether Mr. Cattlin,
the plaintiff, brought the actions in question upon the
authority of Mr. Barker, the defendant, or whether Mr.
Barker, after they were brought, had, by sanctioning
what had been commenced in his name, undertaken
h
to be responsible for them, so that they proceeded as
his actions. In the first instance, the first instructions
ffeonrdtahnet
actions had been given, not by the defendant,
but by attorneyCowialesll,prtoheeeeding to tore
recapitulate
te company.the
His Lordship
evidence, when
The jury, by their foreman, intimated that their
minds were made up, and gave a verdict for the de-
.EDMONDS AND OTHERS V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Baines Q.C., and Mr. Massy Dawson were
counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Bramwell for the
defendants.
This action was brought against Messrs. Thomas
Challis and R. W. Kennard, Sheriffs of Middlesex,
for a breach of duty on their part, in taking an in-
sufficient replevin bond. The plaintiffs are owners
of the house No. 24, Assembly-row, Mile- end Old-
town, which was in the occupation, and had been for
some years, of a person named Roe, at a rent of 40/.
a year. Roe had got into arrear with his landlords,
who, on the 29th of March last, put a distress into
his house for the rent. One Kitty Gladman, a sister
of Roe's, claimed the furniture in the house as her
property, and on the Ist of April last she replevied
the goods. Under those circumstances, the sheriffs
took a replevin bond, and then the goods were given
up to Kitty Gladman ; thus the plaintiffs parted with
the possession of the goods on the faith of the sheriffs
taking a sufficient replevin bond. It turned out, how-
plaintiffs' counsel, that the
ever, as was alleged by the
replevin bond which they had taken was worth nothing,
law constituting the new
by reason of the operation thea
County Courts, which takes away from the old County
Courts the jurisdiction which they had over replevin
suits, and vests it in the new tribunals established by
the Act for the Recovery of Small Debts. Regard-
less of this change in the law, the sheriffs in this case
had taken their replevin bond in the old County
Court of Middlesex, whereby it was alleged, on the
part of the plaintiffs, that they had altogether lost
the distress and the fruits which they expected to de-
rive from it. The distress was made on the 29th of
March, and the replevin bond on the Ist of April.
Before that the district County Court of Whitechapel