The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICB.CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 15.
(Before Sir J. MORAN.)
MARSH V. KINGDOM
This was a suit for the purpose of enforcing the
specific performance of a contract to deliver to the
plaintiff a lease for 96 years of certain houses in West-
bourne-terrace.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 15.
The Court took the special paper to-day.
ST. PANCRAS.—SCUDDING V. LORANT.
This case occupied the Court the greater part of the
day. The point at issue between the parties was,
whether a rate, made by the vestry of St. Pancras,
for the relief of the poor, on the 12th day of
August, 1839, but which was not completed until the
subsequent 14th of September, was a legal rate or not
within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. The
plaintiff, and several other ratepayers, refused to pay
the rate, on the ground that it could not be enforced, as
some alterations took place in the vestry between these
periods, and they were consequently subjected to a dis-
traint. Believing therate to be invalid,theplantiff brought
an action to recover compensation in damages for the
injury he had in consequence sustained, but principally
with the view of deciding whether the rate was valid or
invalid. The jury considered it was valid, and gave a
verdict for the parish, thus confirming its legality. A
rule calling upon defendants to show cause why a new
trial should not be had was subsequently obtained
on the ground that the rate was invalid,
inasmuch as it was stated to be a rate made on the 12th
of August, whereas it was virtually not made until the
14th of September; that it was not signed, in accordance
with the Act, by the vestrymen by whom it was made,
and was never allowed by the justices. The vestry-
book alone had been signed, but not until the 14th, the
rate being set forth as one made on the 12th of August.
Mr. PEACOCK was now heard at great length in sup-
port of the rule.
Mr. WATSON followed on the other side, and con-
tended that the rate was really made on the 12th of
August, although the lists of ratepayers though
persons were employed at them from day to day—
were not completed until the 14th of September,
when it was signed. The Act did not mean that at
one single meeting all the parties were to come, and sign
the books and make them perfect at that one meeting.
Though some alterations did take place between the
periods mentioned, there was a sufficient number re-
maining of the old vestrymen to make the rate. If the
proceeding was confined to one day, the making of a rate
at all would often become abortive, because the task
could not be performed in a day.
Mr. PEACOCK replied.
The COURT intimated that it would consider the
matter.

The Court will resume the special paper on Tuesday
next.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 15.

SALES OF SHARES AND SCRIP.—LAMOND V. DEVAL.
This was an action to recover the sum of 791., the
price of certain scrip sold to the defendant.
Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiffs. and Mr. Brain-
well appeared for the defendant.
Mr. OSLE stated that the:plaintiffs, Messrs. Lamond,
were very large share-brokers in the city of London, and
they occasionally held large sales of shares In the Hall
of Commerce, Threadneedle-street. These shares were

not only belonging to different persons wishing to sell
them, but some of them belonged to Messrs. Lamond.
On the 7th of August last a sale was held, and the de-
fendant made his appearance and bid for several lots.
There were ten East Indian shares at twenty shillings,
and two lots of others, making in all 791. Some ques-
tion afterwards arose as to the sale, and ,the only ques-
tion the jury would have to try was whether the de-
fendant did or did not purchase the shares.
Mr. Kitchen, the clerk to the auctioneer, stated that
he remembered the sale on the 7th of August. The de-
fendant was there and purchased three lots of shares,
which came to 791. The money was not paid, nor was
there any offer of payment for some time after.
By Mr. BRAMWELL—One of the rules of the place is
that all shares bid for are forfeited if payment is not
made on the day following. Neither the deposit nor
purchase-money was paid. Is aware that Messrs.
Lamond afterwards sold these shares, and they came to
the sum of between 611. and 651. These shares had
risen very much in price before the end of the year.
The defendant afterwards came to Messrs. Lamond
and said that if the shares were delivered to him,' he
would pay for them at once. The shares had then been
sold. When the defendant bid for them witness wrote
down his name. The conditions of sale were read out
before the auction began.
By Mr. OGLE—The defendant came and offered to
take the shares on the same day that they rose in the
market. Had .no communication with the defendant
before entering his name as the highest bidder for the
shares.

After some further evidence of no material weight,

Mr. OGLE said that he had closed his case.

Mr. BRAMWELL said that no case had been made out.
It had been held that the entry by the auctioneer of the
name of the highest bidder in his book was a written
agreement, and that agreement had not been produced.
He also objected that the present case came within, the
Statute of Frauds, as the shares were not legal shares,
and legally transferable.
Mr. Justice BALE here recalled Mr. Kitchen, who
stated that none of these shares were in companies au-
thorised by Act of Parliament. They were, however,
well known in the market.

Mr. Justice ERLE said that they did not then come
under the Statute of Frauds.

Mr. BRAMWELL then objected that the property was
improperly described as "shares" in the declaration,
when it was merely certificates of scrip. Besides any
ten East Indian shares would have done for the de-
fendant; there were no specific shares set apart for him,
and therefore until the specific property was described by
its numbers, or delivered, it was no sale.
Mr. Justice ERLE asked Mr. Kitchen whether, in sell-
ing the ten shares in the East Indian Railway Company,
any particular ten were alluded to, or whether the deli-
very of any ten shares in the company would meet the
bargain.

The witness replied that any ten would have done.
Mr. BRAMWELL then objected, that on their own ad-
mission the plaintiffs had realised 631. los. o❑ the subse-
quent sale of the shares, and yet they brought their
action for the whole sum of 79/. If the action for goods
sold and delivered could be
_maintained, the plaintiffs
could recover the whole sum ; and if they got their ver-
dict the defendant had no means of recovering the sum
of 63/. 10s., which they had received for the sale of the
shams. They were only entitled by right to 151. 10s.
Mr. Justice ERLE said, that on all the points but the
last he was against Mr. Bramwell. It was clear that
there was no accounts stated before action, and therefore
the action could not be maintained. Besides, there was
an offer to pay the 791. on the delivery of the shares.
He thought, therefore, that the plaintiffs should be non-
suited, giving Mr. Ogle leave to move for a verdict for
791., or 15/. 10s., as the Court should deem fit.