The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 15, 1847

Ift.-%tr7-3
4
40,

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY)
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
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, but was not concluded at the rising of
the Court.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court took the special paper to-day.
ST. PANCRAS.-SCDDDING 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, 1539, 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 conseqnently 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
I4th:ot 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.-(THIS DAY.)

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. Bram-
well appeared for the defendant.
Mr. OGLE 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. BRAM WELL —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 GU 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 EnLE 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 Ea3t 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. 10s. on the subse-
quent sale of the shares, and yet they brought their
action for the whole sum of 791. 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 631. 10s., which they had received for the sale of the
shares. 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 79/. 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 151. 10s., as the Court should deem fit.

liberty for the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, or
turn it into a special verdict by consent of the parties,
should the Court be of opinion that the contract wils

From the evidence given upon the trial, it appeared
that the plaintiff in the action was the administratrix of
Mr. Lee, who, during his lifetime, had purchased two
annuities, one immediate, and the other deferred, in the
National Loan Fund and Life Assurance Society, of
which society the defendant was the secretary.
The object of the present action was to recover from
the society the; sum of 3551. paid by the deceased, on
the ground that at the period of his entering into the
contract he was not of sound mind. It appeared
that shortly after the purchase of the annuities in
question, the deceased was confined in several
lunatic asylunv.7, and that lie died in an unsound
state of mind. The question left for the jury to decide
by the Lord Chief Baron was, whether the plaintiff was,
at the time of making the contract, of a sound mind,
and had the defendant any notice of the same ; or was
the contract such an one as would reasonably be entered
into by a sane person, without fraud on the part of the
company. The jury found that he was of unsound mind
at the time of the contract, that the contract was per-
fectly fair, and that there was not slightest ground for
attributing fraud to the company.
Mr. GURNEY now moved, pursuant to leave given at
the trial, to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that there
was no evidence to show that the deceased was of un-
sound mind at the time of his entering upon the contract.
Mr. Baron PARKE—A departure has recently been
made from the old rule, which prevented any person
pleading lunacy as the grounds of non-liability ; but it
must be set out in the declaration that the plaintiff was
known to be of unsound mind.
The Loan CHIEF BARON—Tiore is no doubt but that
the contract was perfectly fair and honourable, and, for
a person in the situation of the purchaser, was highly
desirable and advantageous.
It was finally arranged that the verdict should be
made special in the case by consent of the parties.
CROCKFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.
Mr. JAMES moved in this cause for a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection of the Learned Judge who tried
the case.
The action was brought by the executors of Mr.
Crockford to recover a considerable sum of money from
the defendant, Lord Maidstone, for entrance fees and
subscriptions to the club-rooms established by the late
Mr. Crockford.

The defendant pleaded to a portion of the declaration
that the house in question was a common gaming•house.
The Lord Chief Baron, who tried the cause, not being
of that opinion, so directed the jury, and the jury, in
consequence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It was
now contended that there was evidence to show that this
was a common gaming-house within the meaning of the
Act.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAY).
NEWTON AND WIFE V. BOODLE AND OTHERS.-ALLEGED
TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
In this case, which has arisen out of certain proceed-
ings in Cheltenham regarding Admiral Rickett's pro-
perty, a rule was obtained by the plaintiffs last term, to
show cause why a verdict of guilty should not be en-
tered against Mr. Norman, one of the defendants ;
and why the judgment entered in last Michaelmas term
should be set aside, a term's notice not having been
given. The plaintiff complained that the late Lord
Chief Justice had improperly withheld the evidence ad-
duced against the defendant Norman from going to the
jury, and that a bill of exceptions, taken by the plaintiff,
had not been sealed before the death of the Learned
Judge. The action was for the alleged false imprison-
ment of Mrs. Newton, who had been taken on a writ.
The defendants are Mr. Wroe, the registered proprietor
of the Cheltenham Examiner ; Mr. Norman, said to be
the editor ; and their law agents, Messrs. Boodle and
Lawcott ; and the proceedings arose out of a previous
action, "Newton v. Norman," for an alleged libel in the
newspaper respecting the claims of Mrs. Newton to
Admiral Rickett's property, in which a verdict went for
the defendant. A writ for the costs was issued, on
which Mrs. Newton was arrested ; hence the present
action, which was tried on the 20th of February,
1845. To the declaration not guilty and a
justification were pleaded. A verdict of not
guilty was given on behalf of Norman, and with regard
to the other three, though the trespass was proved, a
verdict of justification was returned in their favour.
After some other proceedings for delay on the part of
the plaintiff, judgment against him was signed on Nov.
14th last, hence the rule fixed for argument today.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD was heard at some length
against the rule, contending there was not a tittle
of evidence against Mr. Norman, and that with regard
to the other point, the regular course of practice had
been strictly adhered to. The rule should therefore be
discharged.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL followed on the same side.
Mr. NEWTON, who conducted his own case, replied
in a very long speech.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the rule came before
the Court under peculiar circumstances. It appeared
on the trial that the Lord Chief Justice had ruled that
there was no evidence f©r the jury against Norman. A
bill of exceptions was tendered against the decision
of the Judge, and also for the non-production
of the writ, or evidence of the writ, ma which the
alledged trespass had taken place. A note of the
exceptions was handed to the Judge, and subsequently,
the sealing of the bill founded on these notes was de-
layed, from the original notes having been mislaid, and
from some other circumstances that had arisen. Shortly
after this the Lord Chief Justice died, but before the bill
of exceptions had been closed. This was a matter the
present Court had not the power to remedy. On a
former occasion a motion on this head had been dis-
charged, but that substantial justice might be done the
rule in the present form was allowed. Having now gone
into the points raised by the present application, and
h e havingw as
ogonef
opinionover the
that notes
there of
wasth e
nl late t e
evidenceL or d Chief hi
whatevere fJustice,
to
fix Norman, and he considered the ruling of the late Chief
Justice on that head quite correct. On this ground, as
well as on the others stated, he considered the rule
should be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
Rule accordingly discharged.

place for the purpose of committing a felony. The sen-
tence of the Court upon him was, that he be transported
for the term of seven years.
Upon hearing the sentence, the prisoner's whining
tone changed into defiance, and he left the bar mutter-
ing curses against the judge and the jury.
Joseph Moss was indicted for stealing a bar of lead,
the property of Thomas Ray.
It appeared that the prisoner's master had been making
some alterations on the premises of the prosecutor, and
the prisoner being engaged in carting away rubbish,
availed himself of the opportunity to steal the lead.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to three
months imprisonment, with hard labour.
George Mills was indicted for attempting to pick
pockets at the General Post-office, on the night of the
28th ult.

The prisoner was one of a numerous and dexterous
gang of thieves, who infest the post-offices at St.
Martin's-le-Grand and Charing-cross, about the time
when there is the greatest rush of persons before the
closing of the boxes, and on the evening named in the in-
dictment, George Seymour swore that he felt a tug at
his pocket, and on looking round saw the prisoner close
by, and a servant of the Oriental Club deposed to having
seen the prisoner's hand in the pocket of Mr. Seymour.
A verdict of Guilty was returned, and the prisoner
was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the
House of Correction.

Charles Dohrman, an itenerant German musician was
indicted for stealing a cornopean, the property of _a
countryman of his named Jacob Vandenbergh.
The evidence of the prosecutor was given through the
medium of an interpreter, as well as the prisoner's de-
fence.

A constable of the R division deposed to having seen
the prisoner enter the prosecutor's shop, in Rosemary-
lane, about seven o'clock in the evening. and having
watched him, owing to his manner being rather sus-
picious, he saw him take down the trumpet from a
hook upon which it hung in the shop, and after he got
into the street, place it to his lips and sound it, to lull
suspicion. After following him a short distance, he
took him into custody. The prosecutor identified the
article as his property.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri-
soner, who implored for mercy in broken English, was
sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard
labour.