The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-19 00:00:00

ZPSWICII AND SUZY ST. EDMUND'S, No. II

(zrzynnanzcET 4ND ELY).

M;.
011m.r.ror then addressed the Committee on behalf of
the Duke of Rutland against the Bill.
At the close of the Learned Gentleman's speech the Com-
mittee adjourned till Monday next.

INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Jfurch 18.
EARIIarT AND OTIIERS V. THE STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON

ILUTAVAY COMPANY. __V
Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments, posl
poned their judgment.

POLLS' Ci WICI'. March 18.
HILTS AND ANOTHER V. NASH AND OTHERS.
This was a bill flied against the executors of Thomas Nash,
to enforce the payment of certain losses incurred by him in
speculation in which he had cog tged with the plaintiffs.
A decree had been made in the cause in favour of the
plaintiffs in 1843, but the case was taken before the Lord
•Chancellor, who varied the decree by the addi.: Lion of certain parties to the suit as defendants.
The cause therefore calve nn for rehearing. The facts are
these:—ln the year 1341 George Webb suggested to the
plaintiffs, Hills and Burton, and to Thomas Nash, and a per-
son named Carpenter, all of whom were engaged in the corn
crate, to enter into a speculation for the purchase and sale
of English wheat. The parties agreed that the profit or
logs should be regulated by the proportion of corn which
each invested. It was further stipulated that Mr. Nash
was not to be one of the parties who were either to purchase
or sell.

The plaintiffs held 15,000 quarters of wheat, Webb
5,000, Nash 2,500, Carpenter 20,000, and a person
named* Shepherd. who had been introduced into the
speculation, 2,500. In 1840 the plaintiffs and Carpenter
purchased a large quantity of wheat on a joint account, and
at the end of the year the affairs were wound up, when it was
found that there was a loss of 18,1801. 18s. 6d. Carpenter
came to a settlement with the plaintiffs on the ascertained
loss sustained. Shepherd had also settled his portion of the
Itss. Webb, not being in circumstances to enable him to
liquidate his moiety of the loss, was re!eascd
from all liabilities. Nash died in 1811, and by his will ap-
pointed the defendants in this suit his executors, who, not
finding in the books of the testator any satisfactory evidence
of his being a party to the agreement in question, declined
to make any payment on his account until ample proofs were
given that such was the case. Webb and Shepherd, who
were parties in the original record, were added to the suit.
The case was not conelude,l when the Court rose.

Sf~
ER IP FS' COURT March 19.
( Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
AnSENCP: or. arrouxtras A.ND WITNESSES.
This morning there was the same ground of complaint
which has existed for some time past cf the absence of the
parties at the appointed time, and several causes were either
struck out of the list or were placed at the bottom.
warm v. mooRE.
This was an action brought to recover compensation for
damage done to an omnibus belonging to the plaintiff, au
omnibus proprietor.
The defendant. pleaded that he was not guilty of the
negligence imputed to him, but no one attended on his behalf.
Mr. WILDE stated the case on the part of the plaintiff,
from which it appeared, that in December last tire plaintiff
was driving along the Mile-end-road, when the accident
occurred, tbro.ugh the defendant's cart being on the wrong
side of the road. The.actual damage to the omnibus was
about 101., and as much more was claimed for the loss of time.
On the witnesses being called, however, they were not
present.

: - The UNDER-SHERIFF said that a verdict' for nominal
damages must be taken, unless the witnesses arrived before
the jury were dismissed.
LLOYD V. BERKOVITZ.
This was an action to recover the sum of 81. ss. for one
quarter's rent of a house in Nelson-square, Illackfriars-road.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. BALLANTINE, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
this was the third time the cause had come before the Court,
as two previous verdicts in favour 't f the plaintiff had been
sat aside ; the facts, however, appeared to him to be very
simple. The plaintiff was the landlord of the house for which
the,rent was claimed,. and the defi•ndant, who is a Polish
gentle man, took tho house on an agreement for three years, • but shortly after the expiration of the first quarter he -gave up the key, but had not paid any rent; the plaintiff had ac-
, ceptad the key, which however did not preclude him.frtftn
recovering the rent.
Nixon, a process server, was called and proved ttiat-he
took a key of defendant's wife, but he could not identify it ,• he Lad tried a key in the door and it opened it, but he could
not say that the one produced was the one. •
Mary is ood was called, but could not speak positively to
the key. Defendant was not now in possession.
The defendant's witnesses were called, but did not answer.
The defendant's ATTORNEY said that he had a good defence
to the action on the merits, but of course could not goon with
ztecitlsiahtat
the defence
on w
the else in the absence of his witnesses.
_,%0 verdict was then given for the amount claimed. •
tahaeldprheaviothuastecpcaslaiinontiffit
hadwas eixa--
dpecueed the wife to watt not bound b - 61ve up the key, but that the defendant
3 her act,. It was also urged that the Mien.'
ticai key w 4 not produced . .

The case on behalf of this line was resumed.
Mr. F'. Bruff, civil engineer, was examined at con-
siderable length regarding the engineering features of
this line. He said it started from . out of the Ipswich
and Bury St. Edmund's main, line at Newmarket,.
and proceeded in the most practicable engineer-
ing route to Ely, where it terniinated. To avoid the
necessey of a tunnel at Newmarket, there were two
rather severe gr adiehts between Kenford and New-
market. These were one in sixty and one in eighty
respectively. There would not be any difficulty in work-
ing them, as they existed on the portion of the line
where there would ha the least traffic. The curves pre •
sented no engineering features of difficulty. The estimate
of cost was 13 OWL per mile, or 250,0001. in all, making it
the cheapeSt line yet constructed in the district. The op-
posing company, the Newmarket and Chesterford, proposed. to
make a tunnel at Newmarket, and would therefore have bitter
gradients; but that litre took a circuitous route, and passed
through fens that would make it very difficult of construction.
This clold the promot&s' case.
GUERDON, wit on behalf of certain landowners, pro.
posed to addres the Co:nniii tee on the relative metits of the
competing lines, was refused a hearing,
The CHAIRMAN stating that they would only hear those
who appeared on petition against tire Bill under considera •
tion, on account of alleged injury to be done to their pro-
perties._