The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG

ANCERY COURT.—(THIS DAY).
aT IN R} AMIOT.
he •LORD IN
gave judgment to-day in this
'e, which was argued before the Court yesterday, upon
to dissolve an injunction granted to re-
,: Out the transfer of stock. -His Lordship said that he
10:11 read the petition on which the. injunction was
toll'lte'ii and from that petition it appeared that in the
Ith of August last tat bill of discovery nas filed in the
Ij4rt of Exchequer. It appeared also that in the same
1141-11
4" a distring as was sued out and served upon the
414.thenic• That operated as a precautionary measure., and
Party had the opportunity of filing his bill in the
nary. tray, and moving for an injunction, the
dt.. in the meant. • ,
ime beim,. secured. The prac-
+47. had been of the_. Bank of England to
a no!ice on the party who had sued
yLt.' the writ, that unless within :t certain time (that
7,1,".11,ing a week). a bill was filed, the restraint would
, .
►oti. the stiick. That was the position ot tnings
1" the Art Caine into form transferring the Equity
,l,lllu,,trisilietion of the Court br Exellequer to this Court.
hi'd that jurisdiction continued, the party would not
ti!tt I.een entitled to have sited out the second writ of
..,!:tringas, or, if he was, the Bank of Er.gland would
" Paid no attention to it. Then-the Act came into
,171:,441i0n, and by the fourth and. fifth sections, as his
"r`-'Bhip had always understood, and which was fairly
that
Ile collected from the Act itself, it was intended
those two remedies should b substituted for
the remedy of ilistrhoras %%hick had hitherto been
r.hby the Court of exchequer, and the party should
;(i the right of suing out a distringas, or availing him-
-11. 01 the proceeding, under the 4th section, if he thcught ghtttli,er- Now it did not appear to his Lordship thgt.
:tits Party should be placed in a better situation since the
to.slit of the" Act than he was before it came into ope-
-1,;1u,P.• Under these circumstances, the Court was of
ttlrlen that the party ought not o have applied under
dee4tl section for the injunction ;land therefore the or-
Made upon petition fiir that purpose must be'dis-
15riled witl ots With respect .to the other points'
kjSed • 1 "
his Lordship would confer with the other Judges,.
kris` tome to some fixed rule to be adopted tinder the 4th
1: 15th sections.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TIIE EARL or STAMFoRD.
kdd'lr• Milne, following Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Anderson,
un ,-essed the Court at considerable length this morning,
ueltalf of the application to re-hear the decree pro-
eed by Lord Cottenham.
the CHARLEi WETHERELL then proceeded to ruhliess
•. e
eft. -ourt on behalf of the presolt.trustees, and bad riot
—"eluded when we went to press.

Ei] NC E.

CH

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.)
BROOKS V. PURTON.
if r• CIIANDLESS moved for an order to discharge a
o'al order to amend a bill without prejudice to a corn-
-4 unction obtained as of course after an answer had
1),;(10411 Pat in, a previous order not having been aban-
Cii,tlll but not acted on. The suit had been insti-
%el' restrainingor (among other things) the defendant
btta continuing an action at law, which he had cotn-
iltie,ll('d 'to recover 925/, being one half year's interest
•to 41)0n 5,0001. lent ou mortgage to the plaintiff, and
it) restrain him from all further proceedings for obtain-
- the accruing: interest on that sum, and a common in-
letian had been obtained for want of answer.
towl'e MASTER of the Rou.s, after hearing Mr. Rotnilly
„`ta said, that it appeared an order had been obtained
ill4llead the.bill, the plaintiff undertaking to do so within
tttinc' Weeks, and subsequently another order was ob-
.,.ded as of course to amend, the plaintiff undertaking to
F..
witkin a week. What was done on that occasion was
t L'IlY cSittr.avention of the. "T3th -tirdei of the Couet.
I,,,chas said that order should not be construed literally,
(.04° Was of opinion that the 13th order could not be
o,,,Vdered as referring only to orders to amend, if aeted
on- Qat that it referred also to orders to amend the after
vi:t'r• lie was also of opinion that it was in contra-
terif I" of the 2d order of the 9th May, 1339. The pre-
k4,," aPPlication, therefore, must-be granted, with costs.
"41:1tT
soN V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
'441, Was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
hadquants from prosecuting an action at law they
e°almenced against the plaintiff, their late Secre-
tyYi.fiir recovering the sum of 2,500/., alleged to be due
titit t) the Company, and that an account might be
derien between the parties, and inspection granted to the
N_lalatit, of the books and papers relating thereto, in
;salon of the plaintiff.
,fie (1.• Turner was opening the case for the plaintiff when
:
" to presF.

----
'et-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(liefore Vice-Chancellor ItNIGHT BRUCE.)
'Arr 1101iNER v. SAYNOR.—THE NEW ORDERS. •
114Ite • SPIPKINSON renewed his application to his .I.IC-
Air-r to issue an order to the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring
lA, IV Collett to the bar for not complying with an order
0,:111„(ley into Court.
More 110Noutt inquired whether the order was made
Mrre t,e new orders cothe into COurt.
fure, OlMPRnisori replied that the order was made be-'
t'rder4-1: t when the time for payment expired, the new
116 il,ad come into operation.
44eti '(),outt. inquired whether the intermediate pro-
RW let formerly existed, been abolished?
1.1‘1.1.it '-f-Ilt/It'kissON said the Gth i.irder provided that no
euellior; taeliment with proclamations, nor any writ of
e"alpoi:' should be thereafter issued for the purpose of
the~urt obedience to any order, process, or'decree of
wl,ioNouß said he had always considered the process
44- I Was sought to be used in this case as heavy and
; but in the present ease there seemed to be no
4,patt•ve.. The arties mi rht take the order upon the
liip• -17 td. t
I),‘(!rstanding t w.as gun! e par e, an a the
• of those who applied for it.
fi,t4 he order was then made for the party to be taken
CI the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for contempt of
°um
HOLLAND V. CLARK.
arguments in this cause were concluded this
ruing
o •
No▪ h ugh the sum in diSpute his HONOUR
IC4. the ease was one of such difficulty that he must defer
1• Judgment until the first day of Hilary Term.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
DLAKESLEY V. WHIELDON.
gabS, HONOUR 6ire Judgment this morning for the
"t'ff, reserving the question of costs.

BENH,—(TH IS DA.)
t--g.s at Nisi PriuC
at Guildhall, before Lord DENMY
AN
and a Special Jury.)

f• i•
r' DANIELS V. BARRY.
~RESSWELL • (with whom was Mr. Greenwood)
-Oleo"' the case. It was an action brought to recover
toll: fOr a false and fraudulent representation alleged
t Whitby,‘
ivith ye been made. by Mr. Barry, a ship-owner
iia
151ki regard to a vessel called the Lady'
Itletifl4, Messrs. Daniels, are London merchants, c
At," business in Mincing lane, and in the monthof
jl4triu4VitYeleloB3bB, they entered into a negotiation with
. a ship-brt,ker, for the purchase of the
I(4m
Mild:, for the sum of 5,150/., Mr. Welcomb wiarhanl-i •
sir behalf of the defendant that the vessel in u
Nil-l." was fit to remain for ten years on the nteiNive
tale IV (Lloyd's A ). The defendant agreed
had
44, J en these terms, and after the purchase
b'eeti ~kade it was found that she was very
.t e-
''esßv-', the wales were not of the proper thick-
,it"e counter timbers were also defective as
Ifv's,, the scarfing, and the planks decayed very
o The
no; having been properly seasoned..
;af,144,..%nee was' that irithe year 1840 the plaintiffs were
w/ ;„"t to expend not less than between 700/. and
4repairs Order to keep her on the register, and
19:1 show:i(t'lliat these repairs were not occasioned
11,.tkithitir,dinary wear and tear of the vessel, but from
"elects in her construction. He contended that
k 1 el;I:ri ~ the defendant, must have known the manner
.i'e" the vessel had been built, and had therefore
-'llt ;.;13''. made a false representation of her condition.
ay; Filanant of the damages it would be for the Jury to
„,
'NI tel. every ` I,f( •t-t " the plaintiff; were obliged to
defect i . 41 • • - • • m e defend atnt ws
.e lie 11 0111111 t.
Jury t4l„. "r hen he sold the vesstd, thu Jury were bouna d
1‘,1,1, " eempensetion to the
Carter—l am now clerk in the New Zealand
rn January, 1838, I was a clerk in the ern-
gled•
4-
Or. NVelcomb, the ship-broker. Ile wasi ern:
-A'114,•• ''3• the defendant in that year to sell the
4dl let'ea,red negotietion tookr place.lNith the plaintiffs.
written by --Nit% elcomb to the defendant,
the v 'lJattuary, was put in and read. It stated tlif(t)irt
.11-,oeissel had been conditionally sold to the plaintiff,t
re.
11,..11411;‘,' the defendant guaranteeing that she slum
ii-„1 Years in class A. 1., on. Lloyd's new register,
„ Th; regarded hull and stores.
4-„nnswer was then read, dated Gilt January, from
kk;srry. to rile
agreeing to the sale. A letter from Mr.
tae plaintiffs; dated Bth .August, was also read,lat
%1 tnat the only guarantee he bad given was t
144:5,41(1 he in a certain class.
ltatilt,."94clTOß-GENeuse (with whom were Mr. Kelly
(111-qi„•• Watson)w contended that there was no guarantee
V"l4-1- Part of the defendant as to the condition of tile
hidevand independently of that objection no contract
air c", given in evidence.
114-:Esweer. submitted that the letter of AFV..Wel-
"alA"°neted th. 6 agent of the defendant, sufficiently
,18,ut,''l the sale. The terms of Mr. Welcomb's letter
4;1 nave sold her conditionally—you guaranteeing,
41krp,d8", and the reply of the defendant was that he
is 111 and assented to the representations so made on
'e d„ia'f• The broker evidently acted as the agent of
by "(lent, and the represeutation made by the broker
4Plaintiffs must be taken to be the same as, if made
Elie 04,fendnut
Solacrrou-CFNERAL would maint:till that tl:e
111•44. title vessel was ;ad in issue, and there had been no
Lora sale whatever.
1-kNsise thought the question of sale was put in
Mr r,Y the declarations.
sal e tile'
had no objection to put in the bill of
Mr' le Court thought it necessary. Curter re- examined—Previously to the bill of sale
eneth was all agreement in writing between Mr. Wel-
a„.ad Messrs. Daniels. The Lill of sale is dated 13th
(iluntrY, 18.38.
11,41:-:.ege Henry Chambers—l was clerk to the plaintiffs
--eY were in treaty for the Lady Hilda. I saw Mr.
Ns."111) respecting her classification, and he said she
t.ppn •A 1 ship. -
B°Lierron-GENERAL objected to that. evidence.
411rege fitted that Mr. Welcomh had no right to make
t‘S a.h,ritlttiTiens, but merely to enter into a contract for
"re. cie , vessel. Whatever representations lie made
4tid et) ,arty without any authority from the defendant,
u.td not bind him.
itiß Fl% CaEssweee trusted that, for the sake of fair deal-
Prie:ilween man and man in the city of London, the
tsake pie would not be recognised that an agent night
NeeipV,seforrepresentations with the knowledge of his
the purpose of effecting a sale, and that

then he could turn round and say he was not bound by
these representations.
Lord DENMAN said, without going along with the de-
fendant's counsel, or expressing any opinion upon the
general doctrine, he felt this difficulty, that he could not
tell what occurred between the parties until ho saw the

agreement.
Mr. Creswell was about to tender evidence of what
occurred between the plaintiffs and the broker, and the
result of which was that the letter of the 3d January,
from Mr. Welcomb to the defendant was written at the
instance of the plantiff, and it was only on the produc-
tion of Mr. Barry's answer that the plaintiff was induced
to purchase the vessel.

Lord DENMAN did not think the Jury could know
►►hat occurred unless they saw the agreement, and if
that MIS not produced the plaintiff must he called.

Mr. CRESSVELL %Mild tender the evidence of what
occurred previously to the bill of sale, and then take the
opinion of the Court.

The witness proceeded—At the request of Mr. Da-
niels the letter of the 3,1 of January was written In Mr.
Barry by the broker, it being submitted in the first in-
stance for Mr. Daniels' approval. The answer was also
shown him. Ile said that he would not purchase the
vessel ►unless she was classed for ten years in the register,
and had Mr. Barry's guarantee. to that effect.
Lord DENmAN still thought the agreement ought to
be put in.
The agreement was then put in and read. It was
dated Jan. 8, 1838.
After some further discussion between the Learned
Counsel— •

Lord DENMAN thought the case ought to go to the
Jury, reserving leave to the defendant to move for a-
nonsuit if the Court should be of opinion that the de-
fendant was not bound by the representations of his agent.
Thomas Jackson—l am a surveyor at Whitby. I re-
collect the building of the Lady Hilda in 1835. She was
built by Mr. Lambert, and at his death Mr. Barry,
the defendant, undertook her. When he took her, her
main and after timbers were up. A person going over her
then could ascertain her build very well. Ihave seen
some of the planks which have been taken off the vessel.
The two planks are nearly five inches thick. There is
nothing in Lloyd's about two planks ; it should be one
plank ; but it is the common practice at Whitby to put
two planks. At the heads the plank, is sawed through,
partly to enable it to bend the more easily. I recom-
mended this vessel to be classed Al. I saw one plank
very much worn. Ishould have represented to Lloyd's
that the five inches were made up of three thicknesses
had I been aware of it. I was not aware of it. I only
saw one plank in that state. Several worn and split
timbers were also shown me. Dlr. Barry was a good
deal in London. He is on the Committee at Lloyd's.
The certificate of witness to Lloyd% Was then, put in
and read. . • I

Henry Rouse—l am Captain of the Lady Hilda. I
first sailed her to Barbadoes in January, 1839, and re-
turned in June, 1839. The ship was on shore on her
first voyage. I complained of her weakness to Mr. Da-
niels, but nothing was then done. In December, 1839, I
again sailed to Barbadoes. I found the after end of the
ship very defective, so much so that it would not caulk.
The plank was entirely rotten, and we were obliged to
piece it as a temporary matter to bring the ship home.
We were also obliged to leave out eighteen hogsheads of
sugar from the after part. On my return the ship
was docked at Mr. Hawke's yard at Rotherhithe.
The ship was found so defective that it was , essen-
tially necessary to call a survey of Lloyds surveyors.
Saw the, planks in the wales taken off. ..Almost all of
them were more than two thicknesses. It was ash, oak,
and fir. Some were sound, and some decayed. Of all
those taken out not one was sound. I think the timber
was originally defective, and have no doubt of it. The
wing transom .is one pf the myst .impor4kt4 .
the stern Tit was just. under'' the counter.- It was taken
nut and condemned. It was not solid as it should have
been, and the timber was unsound. (Witness here stated
other timbers which were unsound.) I don't think the
vessel should ever have been classed A 1.

Mr. Ilawkes detailed the various timbers taken out of
different parts of the vessel, and which were condemned
and replaced by sound ones at the instance of the sur-
veyors. His bill amounted to 9001., and about 7701. of
that was for work done.to replace defects in the vessel.
• Mr. Bailley, one of the' surveyors at Lloyd's, produced
the rules and regulations for the construction of vessels,
and their classification.

(The case was proceeding when we went to Press.)

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

DUDELAINR V. THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

- The plaintiff in this case sought to recover compensa-
tion against the defendant for loss sustained by hiM in
the sale of a quantity of fruit, which loss was occasioned
by its detention by them for such a time as to cause the
loss of a market.

Mr. J. Jarvis, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Humfrey ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and proved that the plaintiff had
consigned to him from Ilavre a large quantity of
plums, contained in two hundred and sixteen baskets.
the agent in France having agreed with the Captain
of the Calpe steamer, that the goods should be delivered
in London, free of all other charges, for the sum of
121. 10s. 10d. The goods arrived safe, but through some
blundering upon the part of the servants of the Company,
when they were offered to the plaintiff in Covent-garden,
a demand was made upon him for 121. 10s. 10d. laid out,
and 51. for the carriage by the railway. He showed the
carman the agreement for the carriage, but the carman
said he could not deliver them without the 171. 10s. 10d.,
and he took them back to Nine Elms ; it was true the
error was found out in.thecourse of the day, and they
were re-delivered, but tit too late an hour for the market
that day, which was Saturdafthe 7th of August. The
plaintiff was obliged to keep theM over till Tuesday,
when they were so much deteriorated that they did not
bring above half price.

Mr. HILL, upon the part of' the tiefendants, called wit-
nesses, who showed that the goods were delivered at the
station in Southampton, on the 6th of August, and were
put, in the goods train, which usually started at eigUt
o clock in the ,evening. They were sent, by Prieux, the
agent for the Commercial Steam Company, who made the
charge of 121. 10s. 10d. The way bill was delivered Ito
the guard of the train at eight o'clock. The clerk (,f
Prieux had found out his mistake, and arrived at the
station at ten minutes after eight, to correct it ; but the
clerk refused to interfere, although the train did not
start until seventeen minutes after that hour. The clerk
sent up a memorandum by the mail train, which arrived
in London before six ; but it did not reach the hands of
the principal clerk till ten o'clock, at which
time the goods had been sent out and brought back
again. The Learned Counsel contended that the plain-
titr had no claim against the defendants. Had he any
claim at all it was upon the Commercial Steam Packet
Company.
The plaintiff proved the value of the fruit, which, had
it arrived early enough for the market, would have been
55., and that they were sold, some fur 45., some 35., but
the greater part at only Is. The average loss was about
half, or 2.3. 6d.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
321. 4s.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
InTeIICOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. MAI:81)EN, the bankrupt's Solicitor, applied to the
Learned Commissioner to know his final decision with
regard to the bankrupt's last examination. Such con-
fusion prevailed last night at the close of the proceeding.,,
that he was unwilling to prolong the matter, and he con-
sequently deferred his application until this morning,
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said his intention was to
adjourn the ease situ' die.

-Mr. MA RSDEN said, although most disreputable facts
had transpired during the course of this very lengthened
investigation, yet he felt bound to inquire, whether the
bankrupt would be called upon to defray the expenses
of a fresh meeting ?
Mr. Commissioner HoutOvp said, as he had adjourned
the case, he should say nothing on the subject to which
Mr. Marsden alluded.