The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

BEILBY V. SHEPHERD.
In this cause, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at the sittings after last Michaelmas term, a ver-
dict was returned tor the defendant, with liberty to move
to enter the verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of 501.
The defendant was the master of a vessel named the
Nisus, and was sailing from Ostend to Gainsborough.
The plaintiff was a pilot licensed by the Trinity House
at Hull, and he had offered to pilot the vessel in ques-
tion, which the master, in violation of the General Na-
vigation Act of the 6th of Geo. IV., chap. 125, had re-
fused, thereby rendering himself liable to the amount of the
penalty named in the Act, to recover which the present
action was brought. The point reserved at the trial
was, whether the defendant was liable under the 70th
section of the Act, which imposed a penalty of 501., or
under the 58th section, which fixed the penalty at a few
shillings? The Learned Baron who tried the cause was
of opinion that the master of the vessel was not liable
under the 70th section of the Act.
Mr. MARTIN now contended that the defendant was
liable under both sections of the Act.—Judgment post-
poned.

VOLLANS V. FLETCHER.
In this cause Mr. MARTIN moved for a rule calling
upon the defendant to show cause why the nonsuit
should not be set aside and a verdict entered for the
plaintiff for the sum of 211., or such sum as the Court
might think fit. The action was brought to recover
from the defendant, a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the Birmingham and Walsall Junction Railway,
the sum of 211. paid by plaintiff as his deposit upon 20
shares in this company which had been allotted to him.
Upon the trial the Lord Chief Baron was of opinion that
the agreement to allot the shares should have been
stamped, and the point was reserved for the considera-
tion of the Court, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, leave
being given to move to enter the verdict according to the
terms of the present motion. The Learned Gentleman
now contended that this case was precisely similar to
that of " Walstab v. Spottiswoode," and acting upon the
decision in that case, he apprehended that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover back the money he had paid, the
defendant not having applied it for the purposes for
which it was intended when paid by the plaintiff. He
swoausg
hwt i
tl loi nbge,
rhowever,eeover e d tor e
dt auke
ee d a b
yv etrhdei c
sum
u fmo r
ft hsum
2e s
p per
share, allowed by the Joint Stock Companies Act to be
retained on behalf of preliminary expenses.
The LORD CRIEY BARON said that the difference be-
tween the present case and that of " Walstab v. Spottis-
woode" was this—in the latter case the plaintiff paid the
money upon an agreement that scrip was to be received
upon the payment of the deposit, and upon signing the
deed, but there was no scrip issued by the company,
neither was there any deed prepared for the signature of
the plaintiff, who was therefore fully entitled to recover
back the amount of the deposit made upon the faith of
such an agreement. In the present case the scrip was
ready for delivery, but the plaintiff refused to accept it,
and also neglected to sign the deed which ha& been pre-
pared by the defendant. It was this that constituted the
difference between the two cases, and it was this differ-
ence which led him to direct a nonsuit for the plaintiff
as well as the point raised upon the necessity of stamp-
ing the agreement.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

DAVIS V. LOWNES.

The only matter that came before the Court this morn-
ing was an application made by Mr. Sergeant Manning,
to change the attorney to the defendant in this case,
which was tried at bar the last sitting after term. The
application was granted.
The Court immediately after rose.