The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1847.

OVER LAND MAIL

TELEGRAPHIC DISPATCHES.

The French Government received on Sunday the
following telegraphic dispatches :

" MALTA, JUNE 22.
" The India mail brings accounts of the 12th and
9th of May.

" Tranquillity prevailed in the Punjaub. Lord
Hardinge and the Commander-in-Chief were at
Simla.

" The disturbances continued in the dominions of
the Niz am. A mutiny having taken place among
the troops, in consequence of an attempt made by
the Minister to deprive them of fifteen months' ar-
rears, the contingent was ordered to march, and for
the first time a body of English troops entered the
city of Hyderabad to protect the Minister.
" The Indian journals state, on the authority of
letters from Teheran, that the Shah of Persia had
renounced the intention of commanding in person
the expedition against Khorassan."
_ _

" MALTA, Juin 22.

" 'We have received at Malta no Canton journal.
The Hong-Kong Register publishes an account of the
expedition against the city, together with several
official documents.

" General d'Aguilar had left Captain Graves at
Canton in command of the troops and volunteers, who
were daily drilled. _ _

" All business was interrupted at Canton, and the
merchants were removing all their property, being
apprehensive either of a rising of the people, who
would plunder them as well as the foreigners, or of
a new attack on the part of the English, who, they
supposed, were expecting reinforcements from India.
" Menacing placards against the English and Go-
vernor Keying had been posted up through the city.
" The journals contain no news from Cixhin-
China."

INDIA AND CHINA.

purposes making the grand tour of our principal
military stations.
The Irish and Scotch Relief Fund in Bombay has
reached the sum of 9,5001. ; the total subscriptions
throughout India amounting to nearly 26,0001.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 28

- - - -
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice ERLE and a
Special Jury.)
WYLD V. HUGHES.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr. Ball,
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr.
Butt, Q.C., and Mr. Baldwin, for the defendant.
Sir F. THESIGER said, the plaintiff was the well-known
map-engraver, and the defendant was an engineer, and
the registered promoter of the " London, Staiues, and
Ascot Railway Company." The action was brought to
tbayi.noceopppleari-nptliafftefsoerntghreadveedfenadnadnmtapT;
recover the sum of 5131. ss. 6d., being the price of cer-
hanedorPdl earn swprintedcon-
tained
in a letter dated the 17th of October, 1845, and
addressed to the plaintiff by Mr. Burbury, the defend-
ant's assistant, in these words:—" I hereby engage you
to engrave for Mr. Samuel Hughes 130 plates for plans,
and some for sections, each plate to be two feet three
inches in length, and one foot nine inches in breadth.
Trusting you will be able to arrange to Mr. Hughes's
satisfaction, I am, Sce." That letter was admitted by
the defendant, and it was also admitted that Mr. Bur-
bury was the agent of the defendant in :regard to the
business for which the action was brought. In conse-
quence of that order, as many as 129 plates had been en-
graved for the defendant for the various railways to
which he was engineer, but only 17 of that number were
connected with the London, Staines, and Ascot line. At
that time there was a great demand for labour in that
line of business, as it was necessary for the plans, &c.,to
be deposited with the Railway Department of the Board
of Trade by the 30th of November; and, consequently,
the plaintiff was obliged to pay his workmen unusually
high wages, amounting in some instances to one guinea
a day.
Several engravers were then called as witnesses, who
proved that, according to the cost of executing such work
in the last week of November, 1845, the sum of 3634
ss. was a fair price for the plaintiff to recover.
Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., for the defendant, denied alto-
gether the defendant's liability, and even if he were
liable, he would show that the plaintiff's charges were
most exorbitant. The defendant was the engineer to the
company, and his making the alterations upon the proofs
was the ordinary work of an engineer to a railway
company. It was admitted that Burbury was the agent
of the defendant in regard to the business for which the
action was brought. Burbury was the agent and assist-
ant of Hughes, and the work done was work for a rail-
way to which the defendant was engineer; so that when
Burbury went to make alterations, it was the same as if
Mr. Hughes himself had gone. The fact was, that the
defendant was concerned in several railways, both in
Ireland and England, and he had instructed his assistant
to make inquiries of Mr. Wyld respecting the plates,
instead of which he had written the letter. But Mr.
Wyld never could have supposed that to be an order, for
the letter itself said, that the writer hoped that he
(plaintiff) would be able to arrange to the defendant's
satisfaction. The letter was merely an inquiry as to
whether the plaintiff would receive orders for plates.
In fact, the London, Staines, and Ascot Railway
was not even in contemplation when the letter was
written. The plaintiff produced no order for those seven-
teen plates,
though he must have had one in his office;
but he came upon the engineer, when he ought to have
come upon the company. His coming upon the defendant
was a mere afterthought, for on the 24th of February,
1846, the defendant had settled his private account with
the plaintiff, when no claim was made in respect of this
present demand.
Mr. Burbury was then called to show that the letter
had no reference to the subject of the present action.
Sir F. TRESIGER objected to the admission of the evi-
dence, on the ground that the defendant must be bound
by his admission.
The evidence was admitted, and other witnesses were
called to speak as to the reasonableness of the prices
charged.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
350/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 28.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Sir F. POLLOCK, Chief
Baron, and a Special Jury.)
POTEZ V. GLOSSOP.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. M. Chambers, M'r. Miller, and
Mr. G. Pollock appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Cockburn,
Mr. Ilumfrey, and Sir John Bayley were counsel for the
defendant.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is a
single lady, residing in Craven-street. Strand, sought to
recover 5001., the amount of two bills of exchange for
2501. each, of which the defendant was the acceptor.
To this the defendant placed on the record no less than
43 pleas, resting substantially his defence on the asser-
tion that he had been swindled out of the bills in ques-
tion by one Gardiner, and that the plaintiff had notice
of all the circumstances of fraud connected therewith.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff having been
confined, in the first instance, to the proof of the
handwriting, the defendant proceeded to establish his
various pleas, and from the witnesses adduced in support
of them, it appeared that the defendant, who is a bene-
ficed clergyman in Wiltshire, being somewhat pressed
for money, and seeing a tempting advertisement to the
effect that money to almost any amount might be ob-
tained on personal security on application to A. 8., at
300, Oxford-street, addressed a letter to the quarter in-
dicated, and ultimately accepted two bills for 2501. each,
which he handed over to one Gardiner, who carried on
business in Fludyer-street, Westminster, as a bill
discounter. under the style of " Rutter and C 0.," for
the purpose of being discounted, it being suggested
that they might be " done " for 10 per cent. The
defendant, however, never afterwards saw either money
or bills. Various reasons were interposed by Gardiner
by way of explanation of the delay, and at last the de-
fendant got tired, and suspecting that he was being made
a dupe of, inserted an advertisement in the papers, cha-
racterising the transaction as a " swindle," and caution-
ing the world against dealing with the bills. So
matters stood, with the exception of certain proceedings
in Chancery, till the present action was brought by the
plaintiff, who alleged that she was the bond fide holder
of the defendant's bills for certain bona fide consideration
given by her on discounting the same. In the ceurse of
his case the counsel for the defendant was obliged to put
Gardiner into the box, and he stated that having re-
ceived the bills from the defendant with the bona fide
intention of discounting them, he took them in that
spirit to his highly respectable bankers', Messrs, Cock-
burn, where they lay for three days. Being disap-
pointed there, he applied to one Coyne, a friend, who
undertook the charge, and on the 12th of September,
1846, brought to him a 100/. bank note, which he said
was all he could then get, but added that he would pro-
duce the rest when he had raised the necessary funds on
some securities. This 100/. note Gardiner swore was all
he ever received as part of the discount on the bills for
the defendant, and he excused the non-payment of it to
the defendant on the plea that when the obnoxious ad-
vertisement of the defendant appeared, Coyne told him
that in consequence of that he had been unable to get
the rest of the money. Besides this, it was shown by
the defendant that the bills were endorsed to and by one
Gadderer, who was a lodger in the house of the plaintiff,
and it was insisted that the inevitable result of all these
facts was, that all the parties had conspired together to
defraud the defendant, by cheating him out of his bills
first, and then suing him thereon afterwards.
This being an outline of the case set up by the de-
fendant, the plaintiff next undertook to prove that she
had given actual bond fide consideration for the bills ;
and with this view it was shown that on the 11th of
September she had sold out of the funds 3001. 10s. worth
of stock standing in her nome ; that the 1001. note, ad-
mitted to have been received by Gardiner on the 12th
from Coyne, was a part of that sum, and had been paid
over to Coyne by the plaintiff. It was also attempted to
be shown that another 1001. note, also realised by that
sale, had found its way to Gardiner's hands on the 17th,
but in that respect the evidence broke down.
Mr. COCKBURN having replied on this evidence, re-
marking on the fact that the plaintiff had omitted to put
Gadderer into the box,
Mr. M. CHAMBERS replied on the whole case, contend-
ing that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole
amount, as it abundantly appeared that she bad actually
parted with her money to the extent of 300/. for the pur-
pose of discounting the defendant's bills, that no con-
nexion was shown between her and Gardiner, and that
at all events she was entitled to a verdict for 200/..,
which he contended had been shown to have reached
the hands of the defendant's agent for the purposes of
the bills.
Sir F. POLLOCK, Chief Baron, intimated that in his
opinion the plaintiff could nut recover more than 1001. at
all events. That sum, and no more, had been proved
to have come to Gardiner's hands as discount of the
bills, and the point for the jury was whether the plain-
tiff was entitled to that. That would depend on the
question whether the jury thought that the fraudulent
dealing with the bills was brought home to the plaintiff.
In his opinion, there was no evidence to bring that con-
nexion home to the plaintiff.
Tho jury having deliberated, asked whether they were
bound to find a verdict for the plaintiff for 1001.?
The CHIEF BARON—The verdict, gentlemen, ought
to be yours, not mine, and to carry that respect to which
the tribunal is entitled, it ought not to be a hasty and ill-
considered cne. I think that no one of the pleas is proved,
for Gardiner is not shown to be connected with or known
to the plaintiff, or even Gadderer, before the 12th of
September.
The Foreman—Then, my Lord, we must find for the
plaintiff for 1001.
The CHIEF BARON—NO, you need not do so unless
you please, but I am bound to tell you that I think there
is no evidence to sustain the pleas.
Foreman—My Lord, we are of opinion that the 1001.
was not paid for the bills, and that they never were in
the hands of Miss Potez.
(This announcement was received by a burst of appro-
bation.)
conspiracy
.between all three
soCmietloEfF
ttae'maoNc—haGrgeentalenien th. e pleas are not proved.
parties, for which they might. be indicted. Would you
On such evidence as this convict them of conspiracy
Foreman—My Lord, there appears to have been a
great deal of fraud in the transaction. We think that
the bills were obtained from the defendant by fraud.
CHIEF BARON—That has been plain long ago, but the
question is whether there is evidence to disprove the
right of a person to sue on them to the extent of 1001.
at least, who has been clearly proved to have sold out
3001. from the funds on the 11th of September, that 100/.
being paid to the agent of the defendant on the following
day. You had better consider your verdict, gentlemen.
The jury then laid their heads together, and remained
in close and earnest discussion for more than half an
hour, when they returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for 1001.

Mr. Cardwell, M.P., was in Liverpool during the
whole of Wednesday and Thursday on business con-
nected with his nomination as one of the candidates for
the representation of Liverpool,—LiverpostAlbion.