The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-06 00:00:00

CITY OF WESTMINSTER.

Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., applied for a rule to show cause
why a writ of certiorari should not issue to remove a cer-
tain presentment, made in the Court of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers for the City of Westminster, into the
jurisdiction of this Court.
It appeared, that at a Court held by the Commis-
sioners of Sewers, in Westminster, an order was made
upon Wm. Kennaird Jenkins, to construct certain sewers
upon his own property. As Mr. Jenkins did not fulfil
their directions, the Court imposed a fine of 3,0001. on
him. Mr. Jenkins applied to have the cause removed
into this Court, as he contended that the Court of Com-
missioners of Sewers had no right to interfere with his
private property. The case was one of the utmost im-
portance, and would furnish a precedent for many other
cases.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—I suppose the case must be
fully argued.—Take a rule nisi.
- •

EXCHEQUER.—(THISDAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
ROBINSON. .
before the Lord Chief Baron, a verdict was
In this cause, wsticuhEwLays. cityroe'tfuLluoenddif!unt,.
theTpbleailt‘tTiTffulu'oNr
ATTORNEY
-GENERAL
9w moveds.Bd.
f
on the following grounds:—lt appeared that the action
was brought by a Mr. Lyon Samuel defend-
ant,•agaiiolortathileewtrial,
money, who
allegedw • was
sant
oa übcetidounee efrr,o
from the
trecover
nadcertainttbuem s
aol
sale
of some plate Which he was ordered to sell by thethe
plain-
tiff for him. It appeared that during the sale, oto_
plate in question, which consisted partly of the stock
a silversmith in Itegent-street, Which 'plaintiff had
bought for the purpose of the sale, ,as well as other pro-
perty, also belonging .to the plaintiff, a person of the
name of Makellar was bidding for some of the plate,
and the plaintiff was also bidding against him, tor the
purpose of running up the.price of the goods. It turned
out, however, that the gentleman who had been bidding
for the goods was a madman, • that consequently the
goods were not taken by him, and' the goOds were, by
order of the plaintiff, put up again for sale, when they
realised a considerably less' sum than upon- the first
sale. The action was, thetefore, brought to recover
from the defendant, the amount' of the differePce for
which the plate was sold upon the second time of sale.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff that it was
customary for auctioneers in such cases to make up the
deficiency, and among the witnesses called was one, who
said that if an nuctioneer Were to sell an estate for the
sum of 100,0001., and the purchase was not to be com-
pleted, and if the estate were again to be sold for the
sum of 50,0001., the loss upon the second sale would have
to be made up by the auctioneer himself.
The Cow held that a contract made with a madman
could not be binding upon any parties, whatever might
be the usages of the trade.—liule granted. •

RICHARDSON V DOYLE.
In this cause, which 4as tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at this court, a verdict was returned for the plain-
tiff; with the sum of 471. ss. 2d.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial had on the following grounds:-It appeared
that the plaintiff was a stationer, residing on Ludgate_
hill. The defendant was a member of the bar, and was
also connected with the Morning Chronicle newspaper ;
and this action was brought to recover a sum of
money alleged to be due to the plaintiff from
the defendant for goods sold and delivered. The
defendant pleaded "non-assurnpsit." The evidence
given in the case was that a gentleman in India,
the proprietor of the Agra Aukbar, an Indian newspaper,
had requested to have certain periodicals sent out from
time to time to him in India. Defendant called upon
Richardson the plaintiff, and having showed him the
bottom of a letter which he had received from India,
containing a list of periodicals which he required, and, at
the same time, asked him if he (Richardson) knew the
paper. The articles named in the letter were subse-
quently sent out to India; they were not sent to
defendant, nor was any bill or invoice at any time sent
to him for the articles so forwarded to India until some
time had elapsed, when plaintiff sent in an acceunt to
defendant for the goods so delivered. Defendant said be
was sorry that he had not been paid, he Would write to
Sanders (the person to whoni the goods were sent), and
endeavour to get his money fur him ; at the same time,
he stated that he as nut to be eepsidered respomible for