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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 10.
VANDELIEUR V. ELAGRAVE.

WRIGHTSON V. MACAULAY.

FORDYCE V. BRIDGES.
This part-heard appeal was this day resumed and
brought to a close.

The LORD CHANCELLOR reserved his judgmen

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. PRIMA PPS AND ANOTHER.-THE
DIEMINGINAM NEWS-ROOM.

This was an appeal against the decision of the
defendant and another gentleman, two justices of
Warwickshire. It appeared that the Birmingham
Lti ews - room had been rated by the overseers of the
parish in which it is situated in the usual manner ;
but it also appeared that Mr. Tidd Pratt had certi-
fied that the institution came under the provisions of
the Acts lately passed, by which literary institutions
are exempt from the payment of rates. This certifi-
cate was appealed against by the overseers, and the
defendant, acting as magistrate at the sessions, de-
cided in favour of the institution, and confirmed the
decision of Mr. Pratt.

Mr. MILLER contended that the rate was a good
one ; that the certificate of Mr. Pratt was not final,
and that it might be set up, where two persons sat
down together in a building, and talked on scientific
matters, that the building was exempt.
Mr. MELLOR, on the other hand, contended that this
was clearly a case within the meaning of the Act, and
therefore that the institution was exempt from rates.
The COURT took time to consider the matter.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BADDELEY, CLERIC, V. GINGELL.
This was a special case, which came before the
Court for its decision, upon a question of rating.
It appeared that the defendant was the occupier of
certain premises in a court called the Kent and Essex-
yard, opening out of the High-street, Whitechapel,
and it was contended that the houses in question were
liable to be rated by the Commissioners of Paving,
under a local Act referring to High-street, White-
chapel, inasmuch as the inhabitants derived a benefit
from the expense incurred in cleansing and paving the
High-street.
On the part of the defendant, it was contended
that the Legislature never intended to include the
occupants of courts or yards in the provisions of an
Act having reference to High-street alone, because
some of the houses in the court abutted upon a por-
tion of two streets which adjoined each side of the
court, called Commercial-street and Castle-street, and
if such an interpretation were to be put upon this
Act, then the owners of those houses so abutting
would be liable to be rated under any Acts affecting
those streets. The parties would therefore be liable
to a double or even treble rating.
The COURT ruled that the defendant was liable to
be rated. The case turned entirely on the question
whether the court in question came under the opera-
tion of the Act for regulating High-street, White
chapel. If it was not the intention of the Legisla-
ture to rate those houses, it was clear, upon the other
hand, that it never intended to let them off altogether.
The parties derived benefit from the expenses in-
curred, and he thought that, under all the circum-
stances of the case, the defendant was liable to be
rated.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
(Before Mr. BARON PLATT and Common Juries.)
HARRIS V. POWELL.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
251. upon a bill of exchange accepted by the defendant.
The defendant put in a number of pleas averring
that he had never received any consideration for the
same, and that the plaintiff himself had never received
any consideration for the same.
Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr. Willmore,
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Humfrey was retained
for the defendant, but he was engaged in a case in
the Common Pleas, and Mr. Ball was, therefore, sud-
denly called upon to conduct the defence.
On the part of the plaintiff witnesses were called to
prove the handwriting of the plaintiff.
Mr. BALL, on the part of the defendant, stated that
no consideration had passed to the plaintiff for the
bill, neither had any consideration been given to the
defendant, the acceptor of the bill, and proceeded
to call
William Coyle, residing at Kennington-oval, who
described himself as a general agent for raising money
for gentlemen. The bill produced was drawn by
him upon the defendant. It was given to
him for the purpose of getting it discounted. Not a
shilling had been paid by him to the acceptor as
consideration for the bill. He took the bill to the
office of his brother at Craven. street, requesting him
to discount it. He gave it to his brother in the
presence of Mr. Gadderer. His brother declined to
discount the bill, who thereupon handed it over to
Gadderer, telling him that the bill would no doubt
suit him. The bill was endorsed by him at the time
he handed it over to his brother. Gadderer said that
he would make inquiries upon the subject, and if sa-
tisfied he would discount the bill. Witness after-
wards applied upon several occasions to Gadderer for
the money for the bill, and was put off by him upon
the excuse of money being scarce. He never received
any money from Gadderer, and could never get the
bill out of his hands. Witness succeeded in finding
the present plaintiff at 33, Weston-street. He had
never seen him before.

Cross-examined by Mr. CROWDER—The defendant
formerly carried on business as a wholesale hatter ;
he sold his business, however, previously to his be-
coming acquainted with him, and a considerable
portion of the proceeds had been lost in speculation.
Witness was to have received the usual commission,
5 per cent., upon obtaining the discount for the bill.
He had not acted in violation of any trust reposed in
him by the defendant, who gave him the bill to get
discounted. He had not succeeded in the object for
which he was employed, in consequence of his not
being able to obtain the money or the bill, either
from his brother or Gadderer.

Mr. H. Coyle, brother to the last witness, was next
called, who stated that he handed the bill over to
Gadderer; his brother was not present at the time,
to the best of his recollection. The last witness, his
brother, requested to have the bill back again. He
applied to Gadderer and obtained the bill back again
from him, and returned it to his brother, who brought
it back again to him the next day. He did not re-
collect that Gadderer was present upon that occa-
sion. He handed the bill a second time to Gad-

derer, for the purpose of having it discounted.
He then borrowed 151. from Mr. Gadderer upon
the security of this bill, the principal portion of
which, viz. 101., he handed over to his brother, the
remaining 51. he kept for himself. He kept the Si.
because there was money due to him upon a previous
account between him and his brother. His brother

:old him that he wanted the money for the purpose

of getting a house furnished.
William Coyle recalled, and examined by the
COURT—The bill was accepted by the defendant for
the purpose of obtaining the sum of 251. upon it.
Mr. H. Coyle cross-examined by Mr. CROWDER—
After receiving the sum of 151. from Gadderer he

afterwards received 71. 10s. upon the bill.
Re-examined by Mr. BALL—He had advanced 241.
upon the present bill, and upon another one of 551.
He advanced a sum of 141. 103. upon another bill.
The remaining sums which he bad received from
Gadderer he had put into his own pocket.
William Coyle was again recalled, and examined
by Mr. BALL—He called upon Mr. Harris at his resi-
dence, in Weston-street, Somers Town. He asked
him if his name was Harris, and was answered in the

affirmative. He asked him if he knew either Gad•
derer's or his address ? Harris said that he did not.
He then asked him if he knew Mr. Arthur Henry
Powell, to which question he made a similar answer.
He said, you must surely know the person whom
you are now suing upon a bill of exchange for
25d. He said, he knew nothing of any bill
ionrfeoptileicedxecthhthainsagte,heor any law suit in which he
wag engaged with Mr. Powell. He then
said to a friend who was present, "I wish you would
this
took place conversation
Uw
I u world. w
the hich
Theelltiocfi t has
h then i eifn
November.pt ha: elio"tishee;

The Lord Chancellor this morning gave judgment
in this appeal from the Master of the Rolls, argued
some time ago.
The facts are briefly, that the defendant, Mrs. Bla-
grave, granted an annuity of 5001. to the plaintiff,
through the agency of a person of the name of Yates,
redeemable on six months' notice. In May, 1830,
notice was given to repurchase in November, and in
the month of August the defendant intrusted Yates
with the money necessary to redeem the annuity.
In October Yates prevailed on the plaintiff to
execute the deed of re-assignment without receiv-
ing the purchase-money, but the plaintiff did not
sign any receipt for the money. Yates afterwards
produced the deed to the son of the defendant,
to satisfy him that the money had been paid, but the
deed itself was kept by Yates, who acted in the
transaction as the agent of both parties. Yates
retained the money, and, to deceive both, paid the
annuity, and afterwards died insolvent. The ques-
tion was, which was to be the loser of the 2,5001., the
purchase-money of the annuity ? The Master of
the Rolls held that the defendant was bound to pay
to the plaintiff the repurchase-money so pocketed by
Yates ; and this appeal was the consequence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after going through the
facts as above, affirmed the judgment of the Court
below.

This was an appeal from a decree of Vice-
Chancellor Wigram, relating to the will of John
Heber, dated 1775. The facts are of such a lengthy
and complicated nature, that we must refer such of
our readers as are interested in them to the report in
4 Hare.
The LORD CHANCELLOR affirmed the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor.