The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 28.
(Sittings at Nisi Priu% before Mr. Justice ERLE and a

Special Jury.)
WYLD V. RUCHES.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr. Ball,
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr.
Butt, Q.C., and Mr. Baldwin, for the defendant.
Sir F. THESIGER said, the plaintiff was the well-known
asap-engraver, and the defendant was ati engineer, and
the registered promoter of the " London, Staines ,and
Ascot Railway Company." The action was brought to
recover the sum of 513 L ss. 6d., being the price of cer-
tain copper plates engraved and maps and plans printed
by the plaintiff for the defendant. The order was con-
tained in a letter dated the 17th of October, 1845, and
Addressed to the plaintiff by Mr. Burbury, the defend-
ant's assistant, in these words:—" I hereby engage you
to engrave for Mr. Samuel Hughes 130 plates for plans,
and some for sections, each plate to be two feet three
inches in length, and one foot nine inches in breadth.
Trusting you will be able to arrange to Mr. Hughes's
satisfaction, I am, &c." That letter was admitted by
the defendant, and it was also admitted that Mr. Bur-
bury was the agent of the defendant in regard to the
business for which the action was brought. In conse-
quence of that order, as many as 129 plates had been en-
graved for the defendant for the various railways to
which he was engineer, but only 17 of that number were
connected with the London, Staines, and Ascot line. At
that time there was a great demand for labour in that
line of business, as it was necessary for the plans, &c.;to
be deposited with the Railway Department of the Board
of Trade by the 30th of November; and, consequently,
the plaintiff was obliged to pay his workmen unusually
high wages, amounting in some instances to one guinea
a day.

Several engravers were then called as witnesses, who
proved that, according to the cost of executing such work
in the last week of November, 1845, the sum of 3635.
ss. was a fair price for the plaintiff to recover.
Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., for the defendant, denied alto-
gether the defendant's liability, and even if he were
liable, he would show that the plaintiff's charges were
most exorbitant. The defendant was the engineer to the
company, and his making the alterations upon the proofs
was' the ordinary work of an engineer to a railway
company. It was admitted that Burbury was the agent
of the defendant in regard to the business for which the
action was brought. Burbury was the agent and assist-
ant of Hughes, and the work done was work for a rail-
way to which the defendant was engineer; so that when
Burbury went to make alterations, it was the same as if'
Mr. Ilughes himself had gone. The fact was, that the
defendant was concerned in several railways, both in
Ireland and England, and he had instructed his assistant
to make inquiries of Mr. Wyld respecting the plates,
instead of which he had written the letter. But Mr.
Wyld never could have supposed that to be an order, for
the letter itself said, that the writer hoped that he
(plaintiff) would be able to arrange to the defendant's
satisfaction. The letter was merely an inquiry as to
whether the plaintiff would receive orders for plates.
In fact, the London. Staines, and Ascot Hallway
was not even in contemplation when the letter was
written. The plaintiff produced no order for those seven-
teen plates, though he must have had one in his office;
but he came upon the engineer, when he ought to have
come upon the company. His corning upon the defendant
was a mere afterthought, for on the 24th of February,
1846, the defendant had settled his private account with
the plaintiff, when no claim was made in respect of this
present demand.

Mr. Burbury was then called to show that the letter
had no reference to the subject of the present action.
Sir F. TEESIGER objected to the admission of the evi-
dence, on the ground that the defendant must be bound
by his admission.
The evidence was admitted, and other witnesses were
called to speak as to the reasonableness of the prices
charged.

The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
3501.

June 29.
(Before Lord DENMAN.)
THE SWORD WORN BY LORD NELSON AT TRAFALGAR.
EVANS v. LAWSON.
Sir F. THESIGER said the plaintiff in this case was
Mr. Evans, a dealer in curiosities, relics, and antiquities,
residing in Maddox-street, and that he had brought this
action against the printer and publisher of the Times,
for a libel contained in that paper, which was calculated
to do him irreparable injury. The jury would be aware,
from the peculiar character of the business carried on by
Mr. Evans, that nothing was more likely to be detri-
mental to him than any want of confidence or suspicion
on the part of his customers that he wished to palm off
spurious articles as genuine, because it would lead to the
utter destruction of his business. The libel of which he
complained was of that character. In the course of last
year Mr. Evans came into possession of a sword which
formerly belonged to Lord Nelson. If it were
at all necessary to go into the history of the
sword, he could prove clearly and distinctly its
transmission from Lady Hamilton to Mrs. Smith, the
widow of Alderman Smith, and from her to the plaintiff,
and he could prove the genuineness of the article by
identifying it as the sword placed oa the coffin of Lord
Nelson when he was lying in state. The sword had
been purchased from Mr. Evans by Lord Saye and Sele,
who munificently presented it to Greenwich Hospital.
Mr. Evans was rather surprised, some time afterwards,
by finding a letter inserted in the limes, under the sig-
nature of Sir Harris Nicolas, charging him in distinct
and direct terms with manufacturing curiosities, and
palming off spurious articles as genuine, and having
recourse to what in direct terms was called forgery,
for the purpose of supporting his statement. Mr.
Evans was, therefore, compelled to decide whether he
would submit to the imputation which was so utterly
destructive to his , business, or whether he should
call upon the editor of the Times, either
to apologise for the introduction of the article
or give up the name and manuscript of the person who
was the author of it. The Learned Counsel then read
the libel in question, one paragraph of which stated
that the manufacture of Nelson relics had become a very
profitable speculation to certain curiosity-dealers; and
the writer stated that the folly of persons who were
imposed upon by them was too glaring for him to in-
terfere, but when it was endeavoured to foist one of
these articles upon a national institution, he did think it
was the duty of every Englishman to interfere. The
letter also accused the plaintiff with forging several
letters, which he represented were written by Mrs. Smith,
alleging the genuineness of the sword. (A letter had
appeared in the Times, signed Mrs. Smith, stating that
she had received the sword, with the coat and waistcoat,
from Lady Hamilton. This letter, it appeared, was a
forgery.) Upon this article appearing in the paper the
plaintiff wrote to the defendant, and requested him
either to furnish him with, the name of his solicitor,, or
the name of the writer 'of the article. No answer
having been returned, the plaintiff had no alternative
but to enter the lists against such a formidable antagonist
as the Times.
Witnesses proved that the letter referred to the sword
sold by Mr. Evans.
Mr. HUMFREY replied to the case of the plaintiff in an
amusing address. He said two letters trom Mr. Evans
appeared in the Times, in reply to the letter complained
of, denying that there was any truth in the statement
that the sword which he had sold was not the sword of
the renowned Nelson; and that nearly seven weeks after
an action was commenced against the Times, after a de-
mand had been made by his solicitor, Mr. Flight, of
which, however, the Times took no notice, that an apo-
logy or retractation, under the name of Sir H. Nicolas,
should appear in the columns of that paper. It appeared
that Prince Albert having been informed that Mrs.
Smith had in her possession the coat and waistcoat
worn by Nelson at Trafalgar, lost no time in
purchasing them for 1501., for the purpose of presenting;
them to Greenwich Hospital, and they were presented
accordingly, and are now exhibited in the painted hall.
Mr. Evans shortly after found that Mrs. Smith had a
sword in her possession, which was stated to be Lord
Nelson's, and he succeeded in purchasing it from her for
11. Shortly atter lie sold it to Lord Saye and Sele for
1001., for the purpose of being presented to the hospital,
and his Lordship offered it, but as doubts rested upon
its authenticity,lit was not accepted, Lord Saye and
Sele was an enthusiastic admirer of Nelsonian relics, but
as he was a fresh-water sailor, it was just possible that
he might have been vainly led to believe that the sword
was a genuine article. It was a remarkable fact, that
Nelson wore no sword at the battle, and as the
writer had investigated the merits of a sword
belonging to a person named M'Kenzie, as it was made
by Nelson's man of business, the late Mr. Salter, of the
Strand, and was such a sword as was worn by flag-
officers in 1805, and considered that it was very likely
to be the sword of Nelson, he naturally imagined that
Mr. Evans's sword was a spurious article. Sir Harris
Nicolas was the author of the well-known " Nelson
Dispatches," and had taken the greatest interest in all
that related to the great hero.
Lord DENMAN briefly summed up, and he left it to
the jury to say whether, in their opinion, the letter im-
puted that the plaintiff was a manufacturer of Nelsonian
relics ; he could not bring himself to believe that this
was charged in the letter.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
GILBERT V. LEWIS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the in-
cumbent of Haggerstone, to recover compensation in
damages from the defendant, one of his parishioners,
and an earthenware merchant in the City, for the cir-
culation of a libel charging him with having committed
a nameless offence on several boys.
The jury gave the plaintiff a verdict—Daman

;es, 4001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 28.
'Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Sir F. PoLLocit, Chie
Baron, and a Special Jury.)

POTEz v. GLOSSOP.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Miller, and
Air. G. Pollock appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Cockburr
Mr. Humfrey, and Sir John Bayley were counsel fort he
defendant.

This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is a
single lady, residing in Craven-street. Strand, sought to
recover 500/., the amount of two bills of exchange for
2502 each, of which the defendant was the acceptor.
To this the defendant placed on the record no less than
43 pleas, resting substantially his defence on the asser-
tion that he had been swindled out of the bills in ques-
tion by one Gardiner, and that the plaintiff had notice
of all the circumstances of fraud connected therewith.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff having been
confined, in the first instance, to the proof of the
handwriting, the defendant proceeded to establish his
various pleas, and from the witnesses adduced in support
of them, it appeared that the defendant, who is a bene-
ficed clergyman in Wiltshire, being somewhat pressed
for money, and seeing a tempting advertisement to the
effect that money to almost any amount might be ob-
tained on personal security on application to A. 8., at
300, Oxford•street, addressed a letter to the quarter in-
dicated, and ultimately accepted two bills for 2501. each,
which he handed over to ono Gardiner, who carried on