The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-03 00:00:00

CONDION PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

SIIEN'ARD V. PIRUS.
This action was brought to recover damages, alleged to
have been sustained through the defendant's selling to
plaintiff an unsound and imperfectly built barge, with a
guarantee of soundness and perfection. The plaintiff is a
cement-manufacturer, residing at Maidstone, and the de-
fendant a barge-builder, at the same place. In April,
1838, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written
agreement, the former to buy, sod the latter to sell, for
the sum of 6751., a " new barge, then lying (unrigged)
at the defendant's wharf, completely rigged and fitted
with stores, in the same manner as a barge sold
by Py bus to Sheppard two years before." The
barge upon her first voyage leaked, so that a large quan-
tity of cement was spoiled ; and so on her second a► d
third voyages, after which she was blocked, and next run
aground in consequence of the leakage. The action vvr:s
for the value of the cement destroyed, and for the repairs
of the barge. The jury found for the plaintiff in the full
amount.

Al-. Sergeant CHANNELL now moved for a rule for a
nonsuit, on a point of law, received by the Lord Chief
Justice; or for a new trial on the ground that the verdict
was contrary to evidence. He admitted the leakage, but
contended that it had been made out in evidence that this
was not owing to unsoundness of material, or imperfection
of build, but that it was an infirmity common to all new
bargee, which ought to be sunk for some time to season
them b'forc they should be employed in the carriage of
goods so liable to damage from water as cement. The
point of law reserved was that the agreement entered into
was not to be construed against the defendant as a gtu-
rantee against erfection ; but if the Court were not
with the Learned Serge ant on that, be submitted that the
evidence had exonerated the defendant, and that the vet.-
' diet ought not to have gone for the plaintiff.
Rule nisi granted.
LOCK AND OTHEI:S V. MELVILLE AND OTHERS

Mr. Sergeant BONIVAS moved for a rule to enter a non-
suit in this case, in which a verdict had been given for the
plaintiffs. The action was brought by the ect.;snc-ea of
Mr Barker againtt the defendants, who were creditors of
the alleged bankrupt, and who, in defiance of the commis-
sion, sold Barker's cattle and other agricultural stock
under an execution. The Learned Sergeant now sub-
mitted that the commission was invalid, and that Barker
was wrongly described as a trader within the meaning of
the statute. Under the commission he was described as a
"money serivener,"and if he same rightly under that deicrip-
tion there could be no doubt that he was subject to the Bank-
ruptcy Acts. But, in that statute the " money scrivener"
was stated to be " a person who received, in his trust and
custody, the money and estates of other persons, to be
employed by him for their profit and advantage." The
plaintiff had failed to show that honks had any such trusts
or custody, or that ho in any way was employed in trade.
[lc was an attorney, and all that was shown of his dealings
lmooannseyo m
ever
veornpeayssifiolgr
gh s
hfr m
ad another,R u lenisi
granted.
in money was, that he on three several occasions procured
t hornoeu client
HOWELL V. ADKINS.

Mr. Sergt. GOULBURN moved fir a new trial,on the ground
of misdirection, the Learned Judge (Coltman) having al-
lowed a paragraph, subsequently published to that of which
this action for libel (against the Northampton Herald)
arose, to go to the Jury, although it had not been set forth
in the declaration. The first paragraph stated that certain
pipes, laid by plaintiff in the Bedford County Hospital,
for the purpose of warming the apartments with hot water,
had burst, to the great danger of the patients. This was
not true at the time, but it was prophetic ; for in a f,,w
days afterwards the pipes did burst, and the He-
rald, in stating the fact, repeated the former para,
graph, and dared the plaintiff to disprove it, adding
some observations in disparagement of the plaintiff and his
invention. The second paragraph (the Learned Sergeant
contended) was made improperly a foundation for the ver-
dict, although it might, and probably would be, the ground
of a second action.
The Coma was of opinion lhat the second paragraph
was rightly sent to the Jury, to show the animus of the
defendant.—Rule refused.