The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

lie further submitted that the declaration of the plaintiff
was defective, and that the custom, if there existed no
other objection, was in itself unreasonable, giving the mo-
nopoly to this body over so great an extent as from Yant-
ley Crock to Staines Bridge, on both sides of the rivci.
Coder-Take a rule to show cause.
BRANKER V. MOLY:NE.IA.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.

His Lordship, the Master of the Rolls, proceeded
with the hearing of petitions to-day.

PLATT V. ROUTH.

The arguments in this part-heard petition, which
were commenced yesterday, were resumed and con-
cluded to-day. The principal question in the case was
whether probate duty was due and payable on the will
of Mrs. Platt, and whether also legacy duty was due
from a Mr. Drake as legatee under Mrs. Platt's will.
From the statements of the Learned Counsel it appeared
that Mrs. Platt had under the will of a gentleman
named Ramsden, a power of appointment given to her
by will, but not by deed, over the testator's personal
estate. In pursuance of this provision the lady made
her will, in which she appointed in favour of Mr. Drake.
Upon the question being brought before the Court of
Exchequer, the Learned Judges of tha.t Court were of
opinion that the probate duty was not payable, but that
the legacy duty was. The result of this decision was
that two petitions were presented to the Court, one on
behalf of the Attorney-General, and the other on the
part of Mr. Drake, praying that the judgment of the
Court of Exchequer might be set aside.
Mr. ROMILLY appeared to support the petition on
the part of the Crown, and
Mr. Tinney, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr. Teid, for Mr.
Drake, contending on ►:ehalf of that gentleman that
the legacy duty attached only to the property given by
the will of a person who had the absolute power and
disposition over it, which was not the case with the pro-
perty appointed by the will of Mrs. Platt.
The MASTER of the ROLLS, at the conclusion of the
arguments, stated, that as he considered the question
one of great importance to all parties, he should take
time to consider his judgment ; and upon its being inti•
mated to his Lordship that whatever his decision might
be, one or other of the parties would appeal to the
House of Lords, he stated that he would endeavour
frame his judgment in such a shape as to prevent the
necessity of further proceeding in the Court below, and
facilitate the hearing of the appeal.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a bankrupt, brought this
action of truver to recover a cargo of cotton which the
defendant " converted" improperly to his own use, having
found it on board a sbip belonging to the bankrupt, which
he seized under a mortgage. Defendant had perfect
right to seize the ship, but he had no right whatever to the
cotton. In the declaration it was sat forth that the goods
improperly converted to the defendant's use were, et the
time of " conversion," in possession of the bankrupt. Evi-
dence having shown that they were, of course, in the actual
possession of the defendant, the Judge directed a verdict
for the latter.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL applied for a now trial on the
ground of misdirection. lie said that the cotton, although
it had been seized by the defendant, and was in his actual
word
possession at the time of the alleged conversion—as of
course it must be before he could turn it to his own use—
yet in a legal sense the possession (that is, the property)
was in the bankrupt. The fact was that the Learned
Judge not being accustomed to nisi prius was taken by
u , and directed wrongly
th " possession."—Rule nisi
granted.
surprise
ch
baym thes tako defendant's
of
thecounsel,

RV3sF,LL V BLAKE.

II this case, which was an action upon a promissory note,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL Obtained a rule for a new trial,
on the ground that inadmissible evidence had been received
on the trial.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, ZYov. 4.
ACEY 9. FURNEY.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance of 4001
upon the life of Charles Harman Simpson, which was tried
before Lord Abinger at the London Sittings after last
Term, when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Sir F. POLLOCK moved for a new trial, and from his
statement it appeared that the policy was effected in Hull,
between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Greenwood, the agent in
that town for the British Commercial Assurance Com-
pany, on the 15th March, 1831. The course of dealing
was, that when the receipts for the premiums are sent down
to the agent, unless in fifteen days he returned them,
the Company took it for granted that the premium
was paid, and debited him with the amount.
In 1833 the premium upon Mr. Simpson's life became due
on the 15111 March, and the receipt was sent down to Mr.
Greenwood; the money was not paid until the 1211 of
April, but
,in the mean time Mr. Greenwood had been
debited with the amount, and allowed it, Mr. Simpson
being well known to him, and he having dealings with him.
On the 12th April the money was paid, and Mr. Simpson
died; the office then refused payment of the policy, and
upon the trial they pleaded that the new contract set
up by the receipt of the money on the 12th April
had been obtained by fraud and covin, Mr.
Simpson having in the meantime contracted a disease
which would tend to shorten his life, was liable
to fits, and of drunken and intemperate habits. They of-
fered no evidence upon that plea, and the Jury were dis-
charged upon it. The Learned Gentleman contended
that the Court having debited Mr. Greenwood with the
amount of the premium, which he consented to, and it
being afterwards adopted by Mr. Simpson, must be con-
sidered as a payment cf the premium upon the day. The
Court were of opinion that Greenwood was not in any
way the agent of Simpson for the payment of the premium,
and that therefore there was no evidence of any new con-
tract, and therefore the verdict ought not t• be disturbed.
—Rule refused.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 4.
(Sittings in Banco).
BOSANQUET V. BOLTON•

In this case which was tried at the last Warwick
AsL•izes, before Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and in which
a verdict had been retuned for the plaintiff,
Mr. Sergeant GouLBURN• moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
verdict entered for the defendant. The action was
brought against the defendant with a view of fixing him
as one of the copartners of a banking concern. It appeared
that the defendant hal held 100 shares in the concern,
and had disposed of them some years since, but by the
rules of the copartnership no shares could be transferred
without leave of the Directors, signified lay the signature
of the Chairman to the transfer. Now, at the time
the transfer in question took place, the defendant him-
self was Chairman, and although the Directors had sig-
nified their consent to such transfer, yet the plaintiff
contended that the defendant ought to have signed the
transfer twice, once as the transferrer and second as the
Chairman, in order to make such transfer valid. It
was now contended that the transfer was valid without
such double signature, and further, that even if such
double signature were requisite, the defendant had
ceased to be a partner by forfeiture of his shares, he
having neglected to pay up the calls upon them for
more than three months after they became due, and the
Directors not having within that time waived such for-
feiture.—Rule granted upon both grounds.

MOYENS AND ANOTHER V. HEYWORTH AND ANOTHER

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rula nisi to
set aside the verdict for the plaintiff in this case, which
was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at the London
sittings after last term.
The plaintiffs were large and respectable merchants
in London ; and the defendants bore the same character
in Liverpool, having a branch house in Rio Janeiro.
They had imported a cargo of coffee, which they sold
to the plaintiffs as of the first shipping quality. The
coffee was sent to Rotterdam, and the Dutch brokers
reported it to be of an inferior quality. There was
much conflicting evidence at the trial, and the Jury
were out between two and three hours, so that it was a
case of much doubt, and also of very considerable im-
portance to the commercial world ; and he trusted he
would obtain a rule, so that it should receive the grave
consideration of the Court.—Rule granted.

THE SUN, I.otsinON, THLTRSDAY, NOVEMBER & 1840.