The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-13 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. JONES.

This was an action to recover a sum of 2561., being
the amount of an attorney's bill of costs for work and
labour done in the Court of Chancery and the Court of
Common Pleas. The declaration alleged that the de-
fendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum for
work'and labour done in prosecuting divers suits at law
and in equity ; there was also account for money paid,
and upon 'an account stated. To these the defendant
had pleaded, in substance, that at the time the cause of
action_mentioned in the declaration accrued, the plaintiff
was not d►ly admitted and enrolled an attorney of the
Court: of Chancery ; and to the count fur work done in
the Court of Common Pleas, the defendant pleaded that
at the time the cause of action accrued in that Court,
the defendant was not duly admitted and enrolled an at-
torney of that Court. To these pleas the plaintiff had
demurred specially, and
Mr. KELLY now appeared in support of the demurrer.
He submitted that the pleas were bad for ambiguity and
uncertainty, and for this reason, that it neither admitted
nor denied that he was an attorney at the time, because
it may be that the plaintiff was an attorney, but that
there was some irregularity or illegality in his enrol-
ment. The plaintiff claimed compensation for certain
work and labour done, and had a good cause of
action, unless the defendant by his pleas set up a
good cause of action in point of law and fact.
'The plea stated; 'that at the time the cause
of action accrued the plaintiff was not duly ad-
mitted and enrolled an attorney; but admitting
,for a
moment that he was not an attorney at the time, their
Lordships would immediately perceive that it would not
be an answer to the action. It was quite possible that
the plaintiff might not be an attorney at the time the
cause of action accrued, but the question the Cuurt would
have to decide was, whether at the time he carried of
these suits and performed that work he was an attorney.
Now it appeared to him that. fur that ambiguity, t ie'plea
was bad, and could not be maintained. StippeSe;as,was
quite consistent with everything that appeared on the
record, the plaintiff had undertaken to carry on certain
suits, and that he would not ask for payment until
certain sum had been recovered out of Chancery,
he would have carried on that business at a time when he
was duly admitted and enrolled, and the business having
terminated, he might have ceased to be a solicitor—then
perhaps a month afterwards the defendant received his
money out of Chancery, and the plaintiff applied for
payment—it would be clearly no defence to the action
then, that the plaintiff had ceased to be a solicitor, and
had no right to recover. In every conceivable case in
which a solicitor did business for his client, and in which
he gave credit—whether for a month or till the end of
the suit—whether for a time certain or conditional—in

every single case in which credit was given, the cause of
action did not accrue till the suit had terminated. The
Learned Counsel, after citing several authorities on the
subject, concluded by submitting that the pleas were bad,
and that the judgment of the Cuurt must be for the de-
fendant. _ _ _ _ _

entrusted the attorney, for the purpose of paying. over I
the same to Herring. For some time the interest was
regularly paid. At length suspicion was aroused, from
the fact of the mortgage deeds not being forthcoming.
Inquiries were made of Herring, and it was discovered
-that he had never received any money, nor had he ever
applied to: the attorney to raise money by mortgage.
On discovering this, application was made to the Court
for a rule, calling on the attorney to show cause why he
should not pay over the money in question to Mr.Bright-
man, which rule was eventually made absolute. Under
these circumstances, "he applied for a rule absolute at
once. In the case of Mr. Burgin, the attorney acting for
that gentleman had received a sum of money,
for the purpose of paying the same over
to a person to whom Mr. Burgin was indebted. He told
Mr. Burgin he had done so, and when subsequently Mr.
Burgin was served with a , writ •to recover the amount,
the attorney said he would pay the money, and would
indemnify him. Mr. Burgin then applied to another at-
torney. Application was made to this Court for a rule,
as in the former instance, which was also made absolute.
The dai., before execution was to be levied, a fiat in bank-
ruptcy was sued out against the attorney by his under
agent. Under these circumstances, he applied for a rule
absolute for an attachment, and for- a rule nisi, calling
on the attorney to show cause why his name should nut
be struck off the rolls.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take the two rules in both
cases.

Mr. CRESWELL, for the defendant, contended that
none of the objections of his Learned Friend were
tenable. The declaration was not for work and labour done
in the ordinary terms, but .for work and labour done for
the defendant as his agent, andupon his retainer and re-
quest in prosecuting and. defending divers suits at law
and in equity. It was, in plain terms, for work done in
his capacity of an attorney, and which he could not do
unless he was authorised by enrolment, and he thought
that must be held to be a good defence to the action.
The COURT was of opinion that the pleas were bad
for the defects pointed out by the Learned Counsel, in
the first place, because there was a duplicity in them,
there being not less than three distinct facts alleged,
either of which, if sustained, would have been a suffieient
answer to the action. Then with regard to the plea of
time, it appeared to them that the objection was valid,
inasmuch as they could not tell when the cause of action
had commenced or accrued. It was possible that it might
have accrued in consequence of credit given, and for that
uncertainty, and the reasons already stated, the Court
was of opinion that the pleas were bad, and their judg-
e ment must be for the plaintiff.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.- HINTON V. DIBBETT AND

OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendants, who were common carriers between
London and Colne, to recover the value of two bales of
silk, which had been lost, as was alleged, by the mis•
conduct of the defendants. The plaintiff, in his declara-
tion, set out that the defendants not regarding their
duty had by their misfeasance, gross negligence, and
wrongful conduct, lost the bales of silk. To that the
defendants pleaded that they had affixed a notice in
their office at Gerard's Hall, Basing-lane, City, that in
order to render them liable for the loss of goods above a
certain value, including silk, an increased rate of charge
was required to be paid, and that the plaintiff had notice
thereof. The plaintiff replied to that, that the defendants
were guilty of culpable negligence, wrongful conduct,
and want of care in their capacity of carriers, whereby
the goods were lost. To that there was a rejoinder that
the parcel was delivered in the usual course of business
to their servants who had the conduct of their business,
and that the goods were lost out of the conveyance, not
by any personal want of care on their part., but by the
negligence of their servants. To that rejoinder there
was a demurrer, and
Mr. ERLE now appeared in support of that demurrer,
and ,submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The point which was to be raised before their Lordship
in the present case was, whether the carrier still re-
mained responsible for protected articles if lost through
the misfeasance of his servants. Now it appeared to
him that the present did not come within the Act for
the protection of carriers, and it would be for the Court
to put a construction upon that Act, and say whether it
extended to demands like the present. As the law stood
before the Act passed the carriers stood in the situation
of insurers, and if goods were damaged or lost that
fastened the responsibility upon them, and he had no de-
fence unless it arose from the act of God or the Ring's
enemies. To relieve themselves of that responsibility
the carriers gave a notice to all their customers and the
public generally that they would not be liable for goods
above a certain value unless due notice was given and
an increased rate of charge paid. Notwithstanding the
publicity given to these notices, juries in every case
found verdicts against them ; and then the Act Ist
Wil. IV. chap. 43, for the more effectual protection of
common carriers was passed. The Act was intended to
give a sort of statutable notice to all the King's subjects,
and it provided that carriers should not be liable for cer-
tain articles enumerated above the value of 101. unless
notice was previously given. Now he would admit that
in the present case the party had given no notice, but it
was clear that the Act did not protect the carrier either
from the felonious act of his own servant or his own
personal neglect, and that the plaintiff had a cause of
action arising from the gross negligence and misconduct
of the defendants. He believed the main ground that
would be relied upon on the other side was, that by the
Bth section of the Act the carrier being liable for the
Ifelonious conduct of his servant, the Court must infer

that for any misfeasance short of a felonious act the car-
rier was not liable. He apprehended, however, that
the Court would be of opinion that the act of the ser-
vant in the present case must be taken to be the act of
the defendant, and that as the Act made no provision for
the misconduct or neglect of the carrier, he must be held
to be liable, and the plaintiff entitled to the judgment of
the Court.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no question
of wilful damage in the present case. The question was,
whether, when articles included in the excepted list
were delivered without notice, and lost or damaged by
the negligence of his servant, the carrier was liable.
The provisions of the Act were, in his opinion, perfectly
clear and plain. Certain articles were excepted, unless
the carriers had notice, which had not been done in
the present case. Then the only exception to that
liability was the felonious act of the servant, and
in that clause there was no exception of gross
or wilful negligence, or anything of that sort,
which the Legislature could scarcely have overlooked
or omitted if they had intended to include them.
If the Court was of opinion that negligence was included,
they would, by putting such a construction on the Act,
be legislating instead of interpreting it as it had been
framed. If, notwithstanding the absence of notice, the
liability was still to attach to the carrier, then the Act
was nothing more nor less than a dead letter.
The COURT thought the question was of so much
importance that they would take time to consider their
decision.
Their Lordships rose at two o'clock, in order to meet
the Other Judges in the Exchequer Chamber.

BAIL COURT, Nov 12.
NICHOLLS V. LORD HUNTINGTOWER-PRICE V. THE

SAME.

Mr. lIUMFREY moved7c;r a rule to show cause why
the attorney for the defendant in both the above causes,
had been should not. be changed, on the costs due to him being
between 3 0001
paid. It appeared from the affidavits that Lord Hunting-
towerto taken. in execution for debts amounting
ever,and 4,0001. His Lordship swore that of
the existence' .
of these debts he had no knowledge what-
and he imputedfo collusion to his own attorney and
rprtehseentpolanienthitaids.
analogous to the •
the attorney
beAen motionmade i
in
somewhat
otheren' hat
Court on a former da
in the newspapers!' a report of which had appeared
received a letter Lordfrom
liuntingtower had since
acted as- his attorney, theta gentleman who had
the report in the Times he wasdesirousstingthat having read
don should be put to their relatiil-
e pit that a terr'ina.
and client. The defendant swore thaotshflo'ns P .-. attorney
timation whatever that any proceed;• - "ad had no in
acrainst him until the executi. -..gs had been taken
him,
and that he had P" ",-a" had been served
..aver g iven any authority upon
gentleman officiatin.-- as his
atton to the
and he further stated his belief yin
the gentleman in
in the causes to act,,
question NvP../ indebted to him in a considerable
money. He (Mr, Ilumfrey), on behalfofh sum of
had therefore to apply that the name 4:, ;ar defendant,
`alight be substituted for that of the gentleman at
Footner
t
Present
claiming to act for the defendant, and that leave
might
be emu to the defendant to plead de novo.—ltulenTa
Mr. Justice PATTEsoN having gone through the bar,
.
and having waited a considerable time, asked if any
gen-
tleman had anything to move, when, receiving no answer,
his Lordship rose shortly after eleven o'clock. After the
lapse of a quarter of an hour, several Counsel came run-
ning into Court, and asked the Master if Mr. Justice Patte-
son was gone. A message was sent to his Lordship, who
kindly -consented to return to the Court. It is, however,
much to be desired that Counsel would be more punctual
in their attendance, and not waste the time of the Court
by useless delays.
EXPARTE JOHN BRIGIITMAN, IN THE MATTER OF AN AT-
TORNEY OF THIS COURT ; EXPARTE CHARLES BURGIN,

IN THE MATTER OF THE SAME ATTORNEY.
Mr. PASHLEY applied to the Court for a rule absolute
for an attachment against an attorney of this Court, for
non-payment of a sum of money ordered by him to be paid
to the applicant. It appeared that the wife of Mr. Bright-
man had, before her marriage, employed the attorney in
question as her professional adviser, and that he had.
represented to her that a Mr. Herring was desirous of
borrowing 2001. on mortgage, with which sum he hack

TIM 811 N, LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1841.

by the Act of Parliament. If any negligence had been
committed, it was by the defendants themselves, and
therefore it was for them to show that the 10,000 names
they had chosen to enter in their book had a right to
be there.

The COURT said the case was one of some difficulty
and of much importance as the Company might. be entirely
ruined by an adverse decision, they would take time to
consider their judgment.
The Court rose early, in order that preparation might
be made for the nomination of Sheriffs.
This being what is called the morrow of St. Mar-
tin, a Privy Council was held' in the Court, for
the purpose of settling the names of gentle-
men to be returned to fill up the roll for
Sheriff. Soon after two o'clock the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharncliffe
(Lord President), Lord Denman, Lord Abinger, Chief
Justice Tindal, Sir James Graham, Sir E. Knatch-
bull, and Baron Parke took their seats on the
bench ; the other Judges sat below. The Judges
who went the respective Circuits gave in names to
fill up the roll. The objections were not numerous, and
none of a peculiar nature.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 11.
FIFE AGAINST BLUNT.

This was a cause of subtraction of tithes, promoted by
the Rev. Henry Blunt, Rector of Streatham, against
Mr. Henry Fife, to recover the tithe of a farm, called
Bridge•house Farm, of 90 acres arable land, and 30
acres meadow land, occupied and cropped by the defend-
ant, who had carried away the crops without setting Out
the tithe in the years 1837 and 1838, which amounted
to 551. a year. The suit commenced in the Commissary
Court of Surrey, which rejected a defensive allegation
offered by Mr. Fife, which set up that he was not the
real occupier of the farm, but merely managed it for
another. The defendant appealed from the rejection
of the allegation to this Court. which affirmed the
sentence, holding that if all the facts were proved,
they did not exonerate Mr. Fife from the clam for
tithe, inasmuch as he had held himself out as osten-
sible occupier, and had severed and carried away the
crops. At the instance of the promoters, this Court
retained the cause, which was suspended for some time,
owing to the difficulty of recovering the costs from Mr.
Fife, who did not pay them till he had been taken on a
suit de contuniace capiendo, and imprisoned in Horse-
monger-lane gaol. Mr. Fife's answers to the libel were
not deemed satisfactory,-and he had been called upon for
further and fuller answers. These he had declined to
give, and the cause came on for decision on the evidence
taken on the libel.

Dr. A DDAMS,.for Mr. Blunt, contended that the claim
was fully made out; and that the defendant had rendered
himself liable under the statute for double the amount of
the tithe. Mr. Bltint, however, had no wish td proceed
vindictively, hut was content with the minimum amount
of single tithe.
Mr. Fife appeared in person, and said he had not occupied
the farm till 1838 ; he had merely managed it for a Mr.
Green, and that he did not sever the crops. As to the
remark that there was no desire to proceed against him
vindictively, he had been proceeded against in a vindic-
tive manner, as he should prove in another place.
Sir 11. JENNER S'Aid, it had been clearly proved that
the defendant had occupied the farm in question, or had
held himself out to the promoter and to the world as
the tenant ; that he had paid parochial taxes, and had
had an allowance made to him, as the occupier, for a dog
employed to watch sheep. The Court therefore pro-
nounced for the value of the tithes doe to the rector,
and subtracted by Mr. Fife, at the rate of 5a a-year ;
and it was bound, under the circumstances, to condemn
Mr. Fife in the costs occasioned by his opposition to
the demand (the moderate demand) on behalf of the
rector, in this Court and in the Court below.

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY BURDER

AGAINST LANGLEY.

The Rev. W.. Langley appeared, and gave a negative
issue to the articles admitted last Court day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-110 USE.

A wild-looking Irishman, named James Farrell, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with having
"done" a poor industrious Jew orange and nut merc:lant,
named Abraham Martin out of five shillings.
The complainant said that a good many Irish fruit-
sellers dealt with him for IA hat were called dry cocoa-

tuts. Tht y were two sorts, the best being ten ghilings,
and the worst, or dry nuts, being five shillings the quar-
ter of a hundred. The prisoner, upon entering the shop,
asked for a quarter of a hundred of the very best cocoa-
nuts, and upon receiving them in his basket, put (town
the sum of five shillings instead of the proper price, and
ran out of the shop.
Prisoner—Oh yes ! then step here,Dan Donovan, and
do you be sure to tell the thruth
The LORD MAYOR—Who is Dan Denovan? Prisoner
—Oh! he's the fellow thkt'll set it all right. Stand up,
Dan !

The complainant's daughter—My Lord, Dan Donovan
is the man who told me, when I asked him whether the
blackguard at the bar was going to bring the five shil
lings he robbed me of, that he should like to serve me
in the same manner himself.

Dan Donovau—Oh,- the Lord save us! Do you hear
that, Jim?
The complainant's.daughter stated that she was in the
shop at the time of the sale of the cocoa-nuts. It was
the practice to stamp the nuts with the shop stamp,
otherwise customers resembling the prisoner would col-
lect rotten nuts and swear that they were the complain-
ant's, and require an exchange ; but the prisoner, with-
out waiting for the stamp, disappeared while her father
was busily engaged.
The LORD MAYOR—Now, Mr. Daniel Donovan, mind
what you say.
Dan Donovan—That I will, your Lordship, and it's
aisy for any one to speak the thruth.
• The Prisoner—Now, Dan, you heard every word that
passed between him and I ; didn't you ? Dan Donovan
—Oh, faith, the divel a word was said that I didn't
hear, Jim, sure enough.
The Prisoner—Well, what did he ax me to pay for
these nuts .? Dan Donovan—By my sowl he said you
should have 'em for five shillings.
The complainant's daughter—My Lord, Dan Denovan
was never in the shop at all. I can bring forward wit-
nesses to prove that.
Dan Donovan—Why, who said I was. Sure I know
I wasn't, but I was standing outside the shop.
The LORD MAYOR—And how could you hear what
took place within ? Dan Donovan—Hear ! why, aisy
enough. Sure there's only a bit of a wall between the
shop and the street.—(Great laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—And you heard through the wall
the bargain about, cocoa-nuts, did you ? I suppose you
saw through the wall too ?—(Laughter.) All, Mr. .1)o-
-novan, this won't do. I have no doubt as to your being
near the shop, but it was to help your companion, Mr.
Farrell, in his plan to rob this poor Jew.
Dan Donovan—The Lord save us I I hope your
Lordship would not think of such a thing. God knows
I know-nothing at all about it.
The LORD MAYOR—Now, prisoner, if you don't pay
the five shillings you shall go to Bridewell for 14 days.
Prisoner--Oh, Lord, I'm innocent as a bird.
Dan Donovan (to the prisoner)—Pay the money,
Jim, and have done with it. I .towld •you so afore.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. Jem Farrell then said that, as his Lordship had a
wish that way, he'd thry and get the 'money, but he was
greatly mistaken if he was not an innocent man,_ quite.
George Scott, one of those boys who are employed by
experienced and dangerous thieves who work at a dis-
tance from the places pointed out for plunder, was brought
up, charged with having been on the premises of
Messrs. Ellis and Everington, for the purpose of QOM-
'flitting a robbery.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Howell, who is
in the employment of the firm, that the boy entered the
premises with a bag, and was seen close to a spot from
which but a short time ago three pieces of silk had been
stolen. Upon being asked what he wanted, he said that
he was waiting for his master, but he would neither tell
his master's name nor address. _

The prisoner said, in a very slang voice, that as he
was standing at the corner of King-street, Cheapside, a
gentleman asked him whether he wanted a job, and gave
him the bag, and told him to go to the premises, and
wait for him. Well, he went, and he was grabbed.
The LORD MAYOR—You have been in prison before.
Prison er—Xever know'd such a place.
John ForwLegthe officer)---He was committed under
similar circumstances on the 4th of May.
Prisoner—No such a thing ; that's all a mistake.
Remanded.

G UILDIIAL L.
A person named Mayne appeared yesterday on a sum-
mons granted at the instance of Wyatt, the common in-
former, for an infringement of the excise laws, by selling
spirits without a license.
The circumstances of the case were rather singular.
The defendant kept a brothel, and the witness went there,
accompanied by a female, and was shown into one of the
apartments, when he called for a glass of brandy and
water, with which he was supplied at a charge of 2s. a
glass, about four times the price required in a public-
house. The witness stated that the practice of persons
keeping houses similar to that of the defendant, selling
spirits, had become so general that he could point out at
least thirty such places in theiramediate neighboUrhood
of that against which he informed.
Mr HUMPHREY, on behalf of the defendant, after cross-
examining the witness at great length, contended that
the information could not be entertained by the Alder-
man, because it should be laid down either by the offi-
cers of the Excise or by her Majesty's Solicitor or At-
torney-General.
Sir P. LAURIE, however, entertained a different opi-
nion, and said houses such as those kept by the defend-
ant, under ordinary circumstances, were nuisance enough.
If the sale of spirits was allowed in them, the conse-
quences would be frightful. The law enacted the in-
fliction of a penalty not less than 5/. nor above 2C1., for
every such offence. As this was the first case of the'
kind that came before him, he should inflict the lesser
penalty.
Two sweeps, named Newman and Cannon,
were charged
with stealing sonic cigars from the shop of Mr. Lang-
ton, during his momentary absence front it.
The prisoners pleaded distress.
Sir P. LAURIE said shopkeepers did not observe suffi-
cient caution in exposing their goods so carelessly in
the streets, while there were so many unfortunates
walking the streets in a state of starvation. By
and bye a pelicenaan would be necessary for each trades-
man's door,
The prisoners were sentenced to fourteen days' im-
prisonment.
MARLBOROUG H-STREE T.
A fashionably dressed young man of gentlemanly man-
ners, who gave his name as John Brown, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Hardwick, the presiding Magistrate,
charged with attempting to pick
lowing eirccircumstancespockets under, the fol-
Police constable; No. 96 of the C' division, stated that
aboul, 19 o'clock on Thursday night -he was proceeding
on duty along Bear-street, Leicester-square, when be

observed the prisoner following so closely up behind
two gentlemen walking arm in arm together that he
was induced to watch him, and saw him dis-

tinctly sound the skirt pockets of both of them,
and in going through Sidney-alley, the prisoner got
his hand into one of the gentlemen's pockets,
and at that instant witness seized him. The prisoner
did not succeed in withdrawing anything from the
pocket. The gentlemen declined to gVe their names and
address, and passed on.
The prisoner protested in the strongest and most earn-
est manner that the police constable was mistaken.
Mr. HAnnwicx inquired if he was known to the
Ushers of the Court or the Police.
Several of those officers having looked at him, stated
that they did not recollect him to have been in custody
before, and that they had not seen him about the streets
in company with any of the gang of pickpockets that in-
fest the West End.
Mr. HAnDwicK inquired of police constable No. 96,
whether there was the possibility of his being mistaken ?
The police constable said there could be none whatever.
Mr. HARD WICK said he should remand the prisoner in
order to give time for the necessary inquiries to be made