The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-08 00:00:00

HARRISON V. BIRCH.

This was an action against the Sheriff of Lancashire,
which was tried at the late Liverpool Assizes, before Mr.
Justice Wightman, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, damages 2901.
Mr. CRESSWELL now moved for a rule to show cause
why that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had on the ground of the improper reception of evidence.
The sum sought to be recovered was the value of a quan-
tity of wines, which belonged to Jones, Winkle,
and Co., and which was by them deposited, by
the endorsement of the bill of lading, with the
parties for whose benefit they were afterwards
sold. They were deposited under a written instrument,
and upon an advance of money. The written instrument
was produced and proposed to be rea:l at the trial. It
had only an agreement stamp, therefore, he (Mr.
Cresswell) objected to its reception. lie contended that
the instrument was a mortgage, and ought to bear
a mortgage stamp —as it bore only that of
an agreement, therefore, it ought not to be received.
The Learned Judge admitted the paper in evidence
under the impression that the 55 Geo. 111., called the
Stamp Act, did not apply to personal property. In that
opinion their Lordships would find the Learned Judge
to be decidedly wrong by reading the statute, its lan-
guage was most comprehensive, and applied to property
of all kinds.
The COURT—Take a rule.
DAILLY V. THOMPSON.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Baron
in London wh©n a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. ERLE now moved to set that verdict aside. The
action was brought against the defendant for refusing to
register twenty shares in the Anti-Dry-Rot Company,
of which the plaintiff was the holder of the scrip
receipts. By the Act of Parliament the Company
were empowered to register 10,000 shares and no
more. That number was issued, and many were
registered, but one of the Directors took upon him-
self to reissue a great number of the scrip receipts,
which had already been registered. The fraud was found
out, the delinquent Director absconded, and the shares,
which before were from 121. to 131., instantly fell to from

2/. to 41. Vlt was proved that the plaintiff bought his
shares after the fraud had been made public, and the
price of the shares depreciated. The scrip held by him
were genuine, being signed by three of the Direc-
tors ; but it was impossible to say whether they were
part of the reissues or not. When he applied to have
them registered, the Directors refused to comply, be-
cause the number of 10,000 was already registered, and

they had no power to register more. He (Mr. Erle)
contended that it was just as likely that sonic of those
now on the register were fraudulently obtained as those
the p"operty of his client.
After some consultation on the Bench,
The Lord CHIEF BARON said—You may take your
rule, for the rest of the Court have some doubt on the
point. I confess I have none. No man has a right to
go into the market to purchase after public notice of a
fraud, and at a greatly depreciated value, and then put
all other holders of scrip to proof of the genuineness of
their property. I should think it a gross injustice if
this action should succeed.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 6.
EXPARTE CHILDE.
Mr. DOWDESWELL made an application to the Court
on behelf of a person named Childe, for three rules,
calling upon the Rev. C. Langley to reinstate the appli-
cant in the offices of parish clerk of the Church of St.
Clement's, Wallingford, and of parish clerk and sexton
of the Church of St. Mary's, Wallingford. It appeared
from the affidavit of the applicant that he had held the
offices in question prior to the appointment of the Rev. C.
Langley us Rector, and that the Reverend Gentleman
had dismissed him from these offices. The only
reason alleged for dismissing him from the
office of parish clerk of St. Clement's was, that he
hadrefuied to deliver up the keys of the church, and in
the case of St. Mary's the reason alleged for dismissing
him froin the offices of parish clerk and sexton was
drunkenness. The applicant on oath denied the truth of
these things. The Learned Counsel contended that the
Rector had no authority whatever to dismiss the appli-
Cant in the manner he had dune, and, therefore, he applied
to the Court for redress.—Application granted.
BURNETTS V. MONTAGUE.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of
621. 4s. for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. JAMES said that the plaintiffs in this case were
the Messrs. E. and J. Burnetts, ironmongers, in Holborn,
and the defendant, a Mrs. Sarah Montague, who had
recently been residing at 24 B, Davy-street, Berkeley-
square. The defendant had ordered ironmongery goods
of the plaintiffs to the amount of 621. 45., which had been
delivered between the months of January and March,lB4l.
The defendant had pleaded that she was never indebted;
but there was also a second plea placed on the record, which
was one of the most impudent pieces of effrontery that
had ever; been exhibited. There were degrees in im-
Pudence,—the first was to resist the payment of a just
debt, the second was to place such a plea upon the re-
cord, and the highest degree of impudence was to offer
evidence in support of such a plea. The defendant had
actually placed upon the record a plea stating that one
of the plaintiffs had had some connection with her, and
that these goods were given to her as compensation.
This he had authority to state was a most scandalous
libel. He was surprised that any attorney should place
such a plea on the record, and that a Counsel
should sign it. Mrs. Montague had been intro-
duced to the Messrs. Burnett by Mr. Hart, to whom
he believed she owed money. She had left, and by a ruse
a writ had been served upon her, which she had torn up
and returned to the plaintiff, enclosed in a note, which
was couched in the following terms:—" Mrs. Montague
begs to enclose to the Messrs. Burnetts the remnants of
some paper that have been left with her at half-past five.
Preaps the Messrs. Burnett will call to explain the
meaning of it, as I understand that a similar paper was
left some time since. Mrs. M. has left her house, but
can be found there on Monday."
The LEARNED COUNSEL then called
J. Brett, a porter in the eniploy of Messrs. Burnett,
who proved the delivery of the goods.
He was cross-examined by Mr. PLATT, but nothing
material was stated.
T. Hicken, whitesmith, prOved that he was employed
by the plaintiff to do certain repairs.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT-1-lad seen defendant.
Did not think her any great shakes.
Mr. Hunt, upholsterer, is the father• in-law of Mr. F.
Burnett. Introduced defendant to them. Furnished a part
of the house in Day-street fur her. Had never been paid. She
had sold the furniture and had left. She had authorised
witness, if he could let her house, to pay himself and
Messrs. Burnett out of the proceeds. Various letters
were here put in and read, in one of which she stated
to Mr. Hart that she should defend this action, and if
Mr. hart brought an action she should defend that also.
Cross-examined—Mr. F. Burnett married witness's
daughter in April last. Did not consider defendant a
fine womati. Understood she intended the house as a
lodging-house for gentlemen. She represented herself
as an officer's widow. The second time she came to
witness a gentleman accompanied her, who said that he
would be responsible for her for 401. Who he was wit-
ness did not know.
That was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT for the defence said the question for the
Jury to consider was, if the plea to which the Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff had alluded in such strong terms
were true. Having made great efforts to induce the Jury
to believe that this plea was correct, the Learned Coun-
sel concluded by saying he should call no witnesses.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said' there was a plea on the
record which defendant might have proved if there had
been a word of truth in it, that Frederick Burnett was
indebted to her for meat, drink, board, and lodging, and
that the two plaintiffs had agreed that it should be set
off. The defendant represented also that Frederick
Burnett had seduced her. Now, he supposed the Jury
would consider with him that there was not the slightest
pretence for such a defence.
The Jury said they were perfectly satisfied that there
were no grounds for the defence, and found for the
plaintiffs--Damages Gal. 4s.
SPENCER V. TRUSLOE.
In this case both plaintiff and defendant were barge
owners at Rotherhithe, and on the 30th August, when
there was a rowing match in the river, plaintiff was
standing on his barge, when defendant stepped up to
him, and after challenging him to fight, which
plaintiff refused, he pulled plaintiff's nose. To recover
damages for this injury the present action was brought.
Mr. HumPintEY having stated the case to the Jury,
called
Ann Snow, who said she saw the nose pulling takeplace.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Did the nose crackle?
—(A laugh.) Witness—l cannot say. I did not hear.
Mr. Spencer took it very quietly.
Mr. PLATT—What, as if he were used to it.
Another witness, who was excessively deaf, was called
to prove that defendant had said that he had pulled Mr.
Spencer's nose.
Mr. PLATT (for the defence) denied that any assault
had been committed. In the course ofa quarrel between
the parties, th© plaintiff; had said to the defendant you
are drunk, upon which the defendant said, " If you say
that again I will pull your nose." Mr. Spencer, with a