The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-12 00:00:00

DAGSTER AND OTHERS.

This action was tried at the last sittings after term at
Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice, and a verdict
was found for the plaintiff for 120/., who had sought
1401. The plaintiff was the engineer to the company,
and the defendants Messrs. Bagster and Co., and Messrs.
Dixon, Overbury, and Co., its joint solicitors. He
claimed 1201. from them jointly, for preparinag several
copies of the. books of reference. They pleded non-
liability, with the exception of the 701., 301. of which
they had paid to the plaintiff, and the remainder into
Court.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN now moved for a new trial—
first on misdirection by the Learned Judge; and,
secondly, on the admission of improper evidence on be-
half of the plaintiff. The misdirection, he contended,
consisted in the Learned Judge stating in his charge to
the jury that the payment into court of the money
showed that they considered themselves liable for
something; but the plaintiff failed to prove their joint
liability; and the improper evidence, in the examination
of the secretary of the company with respect to a resolu-
tion passed by the committee laudatory of thews` rvices
of the plaintiff', and on its production, the mter, he
held, being wholly irrelevent, and likely toprejudice the

jury.
Mr. Justice PATTESON adverted to the fact that the
defendants at the trial moved for a nonsuit, on the
ground that there was not sufficient evidence to show
that the defendants acted jointly. That opposition vies
very properly refused, because there was ample evidence
to show joint liability. lie did not consider the admis-
sion of the laudatory notice improper ; and, therefore,
he considered that the verdicts ought not to be dis-

turbed.
Mr. Justice COLERIIGE was of the same opinion, and
Lord DENMAN considered that a plaintiff had a per-
fect right to refer to the record, in order to rebut the de-
fence set up to his claim. He considered that there was
no misdirection.—Rule refused.
_„

BAIL COURT.—(THIS PA'')
The Court sat in Banco in the early part of
in g, but no case of any consequence occurred. the morn.
COTTON W. WAY.
301. 10s., for work and labour done by the
This was an action brought to recover theintiff for
sum of
the defendant. pla
plaintiff
Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Ball appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
It appeared, from the statement of the Learned
Counsel, and l'rom the evidence, that the plaintiff is an
auctioneer residing in the City, and the defendant is a
chemist. In July last the defendant wished to dispose
of some house property, and he employed the
to sell it, agreeing to give him 2 per cent. if the pur-
chase money exceeded 2,000 L, and ti per cent. for any
sum under that. 10L was to be given for the sale, if the
plaintiff sold by means of advertisements, and 5L if the
plaintiff succeeded in raising money by mortgage on
some other property. Mr. Cotton contrived to
sell the property, which consisted of sixteen
performed his part of the
small houses at Bermondsey, for 1,500 L, and
an increased ground rent of 60/. per annum
to a Mr. Cole, who wished to purchase sudh property.
He also succeeded in raising money on other pr roper
deeds-were prepared and the money ready, when the
who had seen the advertise
meats defendant broke off the affair. Under these circum-
stances, the plaintiff soughf the sum of li per cent. on
the 1,5001., and 51. for having
agreement with reference to the mortgage.
urged that, according
we
money
sontheye
fault of the defendant's own arrangements thatltth
idLetJaScHe,ofioArirth.
was not raised upon the remaieing property.
the evidence
meats inserted by Mr. Way, the purchase was
eCodleef,ence,
about by that means instead of the agency
who was, therefore. only entitled to the 10/.
of the plaintiff,rought
agree
in the event of a sale taking place under such eirupon
stances. With regard to the sum of 51., it
that Mr. Cotton was not entitled to it, as:Mova
sold the property without any intervention by
Was cum-
clear
the himself
party. Under these circumstances he submitted other
jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to more submitted o the
although Mr. Way, in order to avoid litigation,e than 10/.,
to pay into Court the sum of / offered
The Learned JUDGE having summed up
The jury returned for the plalntiff—Dam
ages, 301. l Os.

EXCHEQUER—(THIS DAY.)
ORMEROD V. CHADWICK.
The LORD CHIEF autos gave judgment in this ease. '
The question turned upon the interpretation to be given
to the word " door." The Court were unanimously of
opinion that it was the intention of the Legislature to
substitute for the old verbal parochial notices during
the performance of divine worship, a public written and
more permanent notice, upon the doors of all churches
and chapels where divine worship was celebrated, and
the Court was of opinion that the door referred to in the
Act meant the principal, chief, or usual entrance to such
place of worship, and not to all the doors of the build-
ing. With respect to the objection urged before the
Court to the validity of the rate, in consequence of no
notice having been posted at the door of the church, the
Court was clearly of opinion that as no divine service
had been performed in that place for upwards of twelve
I you, it MIS not 514 a DuildiDg 45 referred to by

the Legislature in framing the Act, and that there-
fore there was no necessity for affixing any notice
to the doors of such building. The third point was
whether the warrant was informal in consequence of its
not containing the evidence given upon oath before the
magistrate. The Court was of opinion that there was
no necessity for giving the evidence upon the warrant,
and that, therefore, upon all these grounds the Court
was of opinion that the defendant was entitled to a
verdict.

PILKINGTON V. COOK.
Mr. Baron PAnle gave judgment in this case. The
Court were of opinion that the Ist Victoria, c. 55, for
regulating the amount of remuneration to be paid to
sheriffs and their officers, and which repealed the sta-
tutes of Edward 111. and Henry I. upon this subject,
constituted an exception to the statute of Elizabeth, and
that therefore the declaration was good in law, and the
verdict should be for the plaintiff ; but that if the de-
fendant procured affidavits to show that nothing more
than the charges allowed by law had been made for the
levy, he should be at liberty to amend on payment of
the costs.

PRlf£ V. PRICE.
Mr. Baron PARSE gave judgment in this case in favour
of the plaintiff.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

GREGORY V. THE DUKE or BRUNSWICK AND ANOTHER.

In this case counsel moved for the interference of the
Court, either to stop the proceedings of a writ of error,
if any such existed, or to allow execution against the
plaintiff to be commenced. In 1844 an action was
brought by Mr. Gregory against the Duke of Bruns •
wick and another party, and the case was tried on the
20th of February, 1844, when a verdict was given for
the defendants. A writ of error was subsequently
issued from the Exchequer Chambers, which was tried
on the 4th of August, and the verdict again went for the
defendants. The plaintiff then took steps to carry the
case by a writ of error to the House of Lorde. Parlia-
ment was prorogued on the 28th of August following,
up to which time, from inquiries made by the defendants'
attorney, it was discontinued. No steps had been taken,
and no such writ had been issued, nor did the officers of
the Court of Chancery know anything whatever of the
matter. The Learned Gentleman, therefore, moved, on
affidavits setting forth these facts, that on account of
the informal proceedings of the plaintiff, the writ, if any
such had been issued, should be quashed, and that ex-
ecution against the plaintiff be allowed to proceed.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court had no
power to quash such a writ of error if it had been issued,
and if it had not, they were not in possession of sufficient
facts to warrant their ordering execution to proceed on
the verdicts previously obtained.
The Learned Gentleman then withdrew his motion, in
order to bring it forward in another form.

FOOLEY AND ANOTHER P. THE DIRECTORS OF THE

WESTERN GAB COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL moved for a rule nisi for a
new trial, on the ground of the improper admission of
evidence. The case was tried during the last Middlesex
sittings after term, -before Mr. Justice Cresswell, and a
verdict given for the plaintiff for 221 7s. 6d. The
action was brought by Messrs. Pooley and Son, weighing-
machine manufacturers, in Liverpool, against two direc-
tors of the London Western Gas Company, to recover
the value of a patent weighing. machine, supplied to Mr.
Radley, a chemist, employed by the company to make a
series of experiments.
The defence was that Radley had no authority to
order the machine, neither had the secretary of the
company, who had guaranteed payment, any authority
for giving such guarantee.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought, in reviewing all
the facts of the case, that there was not sufficient reason
set forth for disturbing the verdict.—Application refused.
THE ECUADOR_EXPEDITION.—SEWARD AND ♦NOTHER V.