The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, i 7.
DURHAM AND SUNDERLAND RAILWAY CWIPANY t.

WAWN.

The defendant, who is the new Member fOr South
Shields, was a tenant in common. of some lands and
buildings across which the defendants wished to make
their railway. The other tenants in common of the
same property, granted to the Company a long lease of
the premises, in which the defendant declined to con-
cur. The Railway Company, notwithstanding his ob-
jection, took possession under their lease, pulled down
the houses, and laid down their railway. The defendant
then brought an action.acrainst the Company, but failed
on a technical objection. 'He then brought a second ac-
tion of ejectment. On this trial it was argued on be-
half of the Company, that the defendant was not ousted,
as he might walk over the -railway as much as he chose,
although he might thereby incur some personal danger
in case of a train going by at the same moment. The
Court of Exchequer, however, held that though pulling
down the buildings was no ouster, yet laying the railway
across the site was ouster, and -Mr. AVawn recovered
judgment in ejectment for his share of the premises. The
Sheriff being about to execute the writ, the Company
filed their bill in this Court for nn injunction, not as
they said to restrain the execution of the writ by the
Sheriff; but to restrain the defendant from taking up the
iron rails of the railway. The Master of the Rolls
granted the injunction ex parte, but afterwards, en mo-
tion. dissolved it. The Company appealed. It was ar-
gued, on behalf of the defendant, that inasmuch as laying
down the rails had been held to be ouster; taking them
up again was the only way of recovering possession; and
that equity had no Jurisdiction to interfere against a
plain legal right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, having taken time to con-
sider his judgment, this day said, that it had been inti-
mated to him there would be no difficulty in coming to
an arrangement, but for some feeling which existed be-
tween the parties, and which he could not enter into on
the consideration of a right of property.
'Mr. HARE, for the defendant, said that the latter had
been always ready to act with the utmost liberality to-
wards the Company, but he certainly desired from them
an expression of their sense of the impropriety of deal-
ing with his property in the unauthorised manner in
which they had done, and he resisted any attempt of the
Company to compel him to execute the lease by any pro-
ceeding in this Court. Upon the bill being dismissed
and all costs at law and in equity, as between solicitor
and client, paid to him, the defendant would execute the
lease.

The XAORD CHANCELLOR said, that as to the apology
it was a matter he could have nothing to do with, but
upon the execution of the lease the Company ought to
submit to the other terms insisted upon. The Company
by their counsel, agreed to the proposition, and the case
was disposed of accordingly.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT—Hertford, July 17.
The business of this Assize terminated last night. Mr.
Sergeant Taddy finished the criminal cases by the mid-
dle of the day, and he then disposed of two causes, and
shortly afterwards his Court was closed.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Tumet and a Common
Jury.)
PULBROOK V. WATTS.

DISC9IINTING.—This was an action upon a bill
of exchange for 361. 155., accepted by Mr. Alaric Watts,
and endorsed to the plaintiff.
Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Thesi-
ger for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he had accepted the bill
in question for the accommodation of one Robert Wallis,
and that when it was due Wallis had given a bill for 371.,
and also a sum of 1/. 10s. in satisfaction of it.
Mr. JAMES having stated the case, called
Mr. John Clark, who said that he knew Mr. Watts
and Mr. Wallis, and he had been in the habit of dis-
counting bills and advancing money to the latter, and
the bill in question was brought to him by Wallis, and
he discounted it for him ; and subsequently, in another
transaction with the present plaintiff, he paid him over
the bill, and it was dishonoured when due and returned
to him. He saw Wallis after the bill had been disho-
noured, and he said that he would give him a bill for
371. in .lieu of the bill that had been dishonoured, and
he would insure its being paid when it arrived at matu-

rity. He took the 37/. bill, and, he believed, 30s. in ad-
dition as commission. He paid this second bill to a
merchant in the City, and it was also dishonoured, and
returned to him. He called at the office of the defendant
a number of times about his acceptance, and pressed
him to pay the amount ; and he said, that if he was put
to 'no expense about the bills, he would place a picture
worth fifty pounds in his possession. He could not, how-
ever, get either the picture or thezappg.
Cross-examined by Mr. THEstoEn.--Witness was for-
merly in the shoe line, but was at present a retired gen-
tleman living on his means. He had unfortunately
" done" a good many bills.
Mr. TIIESIGER—Yes, and a good many persons too, I
dare say.—(Laughter.)

Witness—ll only discount bills when it is likely to be
beneficial to the parties. I have injured myself to benefit
others.

Mr. THEsmEn—Oh! I have no doubt of that. You
generally charged a little " commission," though, did you
not? Witness Certainly, it could not be done without—
that is a regular thing.
Mr. TiIESIGER—Now can you giVe us any idea what
discount you used to charge-50 per cent. ? Witness—
Oh, noi. certainly not.
Mr. THESIGER—WiII you swear now that you have
never received fifty per cent. ? Witness (hesitating)—
Well, well, I may have done it ; but, observe, the bills
must have been " doubtful," mere waste paper. I have
had a good many transactions with 'Wallis, and have be-
friended him many years.
Mr. TIIESIGER—You never charged him fifty per cent.
discount; of course ? Wittiessi think not, certainly.
He used to bring me bills of respectable parties, and he
made his arrangements accordingly.
Mr. THESIGE—Yes, and you made your arrange-
ments,' no doubt, accordingly ; what was your general
per. tentage ? Witness—Oh, five, ten, fifteen, twenty
per cent.

- Mr. THESIGER—Come, come, Mr. Clark, a little
more—twenty-five ? Witness—l may have had twenty-
five per cent.
Mr. THESIGER— Can't you screw it a little more ?
(The tone in which the Learned Counsel put this to the
witness caused a roar of laughter in the Court.) Wit-
ness—Not thirty per cent. ; not ever twenty-five with
good bills.

- Mr. THESIGER—NOW, will you swear you never
charged fifty per cent. ? Witness—Well, well : will
you let me consider a minute •
Mr. THESIGER—NO, no • don't discount my question.
I must have an answer. Witness—Than I don't think

I ever did. If I have, it must have been under particular
circumstances. The general charge was twenty per cent.
Mr. THESIGER—Did you charge that amount in a two
months' bill ? Witness—Oh, no i four months.
Mr. THESIGER—WeII, that would be pretty good in-
terest, would it not ?
The witness, on further cross-examination, denied that
he told Walls that the bill for 361. 15s. was mislaid, but
that he would give it up to him upon his receiving the
37/. bill and 1/. 10s. "commission."

The Learned Counsel cautioned the witness, and then
put into his hands a paper, in his own handwritit g, to
the following effect :—" I have received a bill for 371. in
lieu of "one for 361. 155., which I promise to give up on
payment of commission of 1/. 10s."

This 'was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. TITESIGER then addressed the Jury, and com-
mented.in severe terms upon the conduct of the witness
Clark, and he called upon them, as the case rested en-
tirely on his evidence, not to place reliance upon it, and
saddle the defendant, who was an honourable and re-
spectable man, with a liability to which he was not at all
answerable.

Robert Wallis was then called in support of the plea
that the bill had been accepted for his accommodation,
but on his beinc, examined he said that the bill in ques-
tion was given for a print that he sold to Mr. Watts,
Lord. Chief Justice TINDAL—Then there is an end of
the case..

Mr. THESIGER—I am afraid so, my. Lord.
Verdict for the plaintiff, with interest for the time of
the bill being dishonoured.
Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and a Special Jury.;