The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-23 00:00:00

DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.

. -
WH- -
EAT. BARLEY. I OATS. I AYE. BEANS. I PEAS.
Gs Od 2s Sd 2s 6d 2s Od Is Od Es Od

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

WATSON V. LORD CHARLETILLE AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover a sum of money, which
had been paid by the plaintiff on scrip shares in the
Newry and Armagh Railway, of which the defendant
and others were provisional committeemen. The plain-
tiff sought to recover the money ou the ground that he
had been induced to subscribe his money by misrepre-
sentation. The verdict at the trial was found for the
plaintiff (as we understood) ; subsequently a
rule was applied for, calling upon the plaintiff
to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
and a nonsuit entered, on the ground that the verdict
was against the evidence.
Lord DENMAN now gave the jndgmont of the Court.
It appeared to the Court that there was no evidence to
show that the money found its way into the hands of
the defendants. The rule for a nonsuit must accordingly
be made absolute.

The rest of the morning was occupied with oases dt-
void of general interest.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuRcHELL.)
WOOD AND OTHERS V. WILLIAMS.

Tho plaintiffs in this action are coal-merchants at
Northumberland-wharf, Strand, and defendant is owner
of the Fawn Margate steam-boat. The claim was for
741. 16s. 2d. for coals supplied by defendant's order.
Evidence was adduced to prove the delivery, and a ver-
dict was given for the amount claimed.

CuX V. MORRIS.

The plaintiff is proprietor of the Law limes; the de-
fendant is an attorney, at present being a managing
clerk in the City. The action was brought to recover
the sum of 51. 15s. 6d. for work and labour done, and
goods sold and supplied to defendant at his request.
Evidence was adduced by which it was proved that
certain numbers of the work had been served, and also
that after the action had been brought defendant ten-
dered the amount without costs, and contended that the
action ought to have been brought in the name of Mr.
Crockford, the publisher.
For the plaintiff it was now contended, on the autho-
rity of several cases in " Chitty on Contracts," and on a
more recent case, " Brunton v. Thompson," 7 Law Times,
p. 430, in all of which it was held that even where the
name of the principal had not been disclosed, he could
maintain an action, and that in fact it ought to be brought
in his name, and not in the :name of the agent, which
it was contended Crockford was, being a mere ser•
vant of the plaintiff, although his name was en-
tered at the Stamp-office, and attached to the paper
as publisher, in compliance with the law. He is also
sub-editor of the Law Times. The bills were made out
in the name of Mr. Crockford, who, however, had no in-
terest in the profits of the paper, or in any of the other
publications at the same office.
The witnesses for the plaintiff were cross-examined
rigidly on the latter points, and admitted Crockford had
demanded payment in his own name.
The UNDER-SHERIFF, in summing up, said the ques-
tion was whether Crockford had sold tee papers on his
own account. The law had been clearly laid down by
the plaintiff's attorney—if the contract had been made
substantially with the plaintiff through Crockford, and
he had not been misled, the plaintiff would be entitled to
a verdict. _