The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, L

tory to the payment of a call of Si.per share, it being
understood that no transfer would take place until the
calls were paid. The persons who had to pay the cads
were those who sent in the shares, and a., they were
sent in by the brokers, they were the parties looked to.
The plaintiff, it would appear, was well aware of the
call, as in two letters which he sent to the defendants,
bearing date the 22d of September and the 14th of No-
vember, he expressed his belief that a call was then due.
A month or two elapsed before the shares were re-
issued, and on the 19th of December the defendants ap-
plied to the plaintiff for the calls, and enclosed him an
invoice for 1511. 10s., they being paid 1501. for the
shares, and 11. 10s for the stamp. lie refused to pay the
call, repudiated the bargain, and applied for the re-
payment of the money he had sent to them, stating that
he had expected the shares fur that amount. Now he
(Mr. Knowles) submitted that he was not in a
position to repudiate the bargain, and that
he could not sue the defendants for the
money, because there was no failure of consideration,
inasmuch as they had fulfilled their part of the transac-
tion. The plaintiff knew that a call was due, and that
unless he paid it he could not obtain the shares. The
defendants had paid 1601. altogether on account of the
shares. The call was unpaid.
Rule granted.
THE NEW JUDGES.—The Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas (Mr. Justice Erle) and Mr. Justice Vaughan,
were sworn in in this Court shortly after its sitting this
morning.

BROMAGE V. VAUGHAN AND BEVAN.
Mr. WHATELEY moved for a rule to show cause why
a nonsuit should not be entered in this case. It was
tried at Gloucester before the Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, and the jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff of 1641., with leave to the defendants to enter a
nonsuit. The action was brought upon a bill of ex-
change, drawn by one of the defendants, Philip
Vaughan, accepted by, a person named Beaumont, and
endorsed by Vaughan in his own name, and that of the
other defendant, they being attorneys in partnership to
the plaintiff. The grounds on which a right of nonsuit
was granted were simply these—whether the acts
of Vaughan was to bind the other defendant (Bevan)
and whether a proper notice of dishonour was given.
The bill was made payable at the London Joint Stock
Bank, whereas the notice of dishonour made it payable
at the London and Westminster Bank. However, the
two banks are under one management, although situated
in different parts of London.
Vaughan, it appeared, suffered judgment to go by
default, but Bevan pleaded that he was not a party to
the endorsement, and that he did not receive a proper
notice of dishonour. It appeared, however, that bills
drawn by Vaughan in a similar manner were paid with
the cognizance of Bevan.
Lord DENMAN intimated that he would consult Chief
Justice Wilde on the subject.

tuft, a few miles from Yarmouth. Remembers getting r
to Yoxford about thirty miles from Yarmouth, and there I
his attention was called to Mr. Lacon, who had been on
the box, There were some words between Mr. Lacon and
the coachman about an excels of luggage and passengers
on the coach. Mr. Lacon sent for a post. chaise and left
the coach.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CROWDER having addressed the jury, and called
certain witnesses to testify as to the loading of the coach, I
and
Mr. WATSON having replied at some length,
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and said that he
certainly did not consider that the contract for the seat
meant allowing a given quantity of room abstractedly
from all other considerations, for much inconvenience
might arise from such an interpretation. The question
for the jury, after al!, was, whether the coach was so
overloaded as to render the travelling in it of a dangerous
character.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 3.
;Sittings in Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a
common jury.)
WELSBY V. BROWN.

This was an action brought brought by the plaintiff, an attor
ney, in the county of Stafford, to recover the sum of
571. 11s. 9d. for professional services rendered by him
to the parish of Abbot's Bromley, during the year
1839, and following years, up to the present time, against
the defendant, who during the years 1839 and 1840, was
one of the overseers of the parish in question.
Mr. Martin, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Watson,' Q.C., for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence given by various wit-
nesses, culled on behalf of the plaintiff, that expenses had
been incurred by the plaintiff ht the removal of various
paupers, attending orders, appeals, and sundry other
matters of parochial business.
It was contended by Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., that the de-
fendant had rendered himself liable to plaintiff for the
payment of his account for services rendered to the
parish, inasmuch as he had himself given the order for
the performance of such works or services.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., on the other hand, contended
that the defendant was not liable, and that even if he
were so, it was a debt contracted prior to the time
allowed by the statute of limitations. The case was
one which would involve a great hardship upon the de-
fendant if he were ccmpelled to pay debts con-
tracted on behalf of the parish, and which
should . properly be paid out of the rates
levied from time to time for that purpose. It was the
duty of the plaintiff to apply for his account during the
year in which his services were rendered, as the parish
had not even the power to make a prospective rate. The
account rendered by plaintiff to defendant was not made
out to Brown the defendant, but to the parish of Abbot's
Bromley ; and in a note sent with the account, plaintiff
stated, " I send you my account against the parish of
Abbot's Bromley." With reference to those portions of
the account referring to periods not affected by the
statute of limitations, it was proved in evidence that
Brawn, the defendant, was not the overseer, nor was lie
in any way connected with the management of it>
affairs, his year of office had expired. and other persons
had been appointed as overseers. The plaintiff had not
a single item in his account in which he stated that he
had either insisted upon or received any instructions
from Brown, since he had ceased to be overseer
of the parish ; on the contrary, there were several
charges made for attending upon the overseers, but
those everseers were persons of the name of Chambers
and Woodroffe, and it could not, therefore, be supposed
for a moment that the defendant was liable to plaintiff
for his attendance or professional advice up ,n
and with parties with whom he was not in
the least degree connected. If such a practice
were to be adopted, then, any person who had for on.
'year filled the office of overseer would be held liable
for all expenses for ever after.
Mr. Baron PLATT said that, with reference to the
question of liability, there was no doubt that if the de
fendant had given instructions to plaintiff, he would
be clearly liable to plaintiff if those instructions were
acted upon, even though the services rendered in con-
staluence of such instructions were for the parish; and the
real question for the jury to consider was, whether
the plaintiff did actually receive from the defendant those
instructions under which he had acted. If they were of
that opinion, of course a verdict must be given for the
plaintiff for the sum claimed for those services, but he
did not think that the overseer could be held liable for
any work done, or services rendered after he had left
office, and had no control over the matter. He would
therefore recommend the jury to find a verdict for the
defendant for that portion of the Maim set up by tht
plaintiff for services rendered by him during those
years in which defendant had ceased to be overseer.
The jury accordingly found a verdict for the plain till
for the sum of 181. 10s. 3d., and for the defendant the
sum of 391. Is. 6d.
Leave was given to move to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for the latter amount in order to raise the
question, which was reserved by Mr. Baron Platt, as to
whether the account rendered by plaintiff had or had
not been properly delivered by plaintiff.
FOXFORTH AND ANOTHER U. KING.

This was a case tried at Newcastle at the last assizes,
before Mr. Justice Cresswell, to recover the amount of a
policy of insurance effected on the ship Helena, in
which a verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON, Q C., now moved for leave to enter a
verdict for the defendant upon the first and second
issues, and also for a new trial upon the ground
of the verdict being against evidence. Upon
the first and second issues the Learned Counsel
contended that as the plaintiffs had parte,
with their interest in the ship, by virtue of a bill of sale
Nhich they had effected in favour of a Mr. Hutchinson,
to whom the plaintiffs were indebted for sundry repairs
done by him to the ship in question, in which bill of sale
no mention whatever was made of the policy, plaintiffs
cou!d not, therefore, have any claim upon the policy
originally effected by them, they having parted with
their interest in the ship upon which such policy was
made. The ground upon which a new trial was sought
was, that the verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as it
was proved that the ship was not at the timeit was insured
in a seaworthy condition, and also that a number of augur
holes were discovered to have been made in the ship's
side, and that in consequence of these holes, combined
with her bad condition, the ship went down in still
water, and not " in consequence of storms and tempes-
tuous weather," as set forth by plaintiffs in their decla•
ration.
The COURT stated that they would take time to con
suit Mr. Justice Cresswell, in order to ascertain whether
he was satisfied with the nature and amount of evidence
given upon the trial.
DROWN AND LANGSIDE V. PROUB.

In this case which was one of that very numerous
class arising out of the "railway department," and which
was tried at the last Kent Assizes before Mr. Justice
Coltman, a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the
sum of 5441. lBs., being the amount claimed for work
and labour done as an engineering surveyor for and on
behalf of the Direct London and Hastings Railway.
The defendant was a member of the previsional com-
mittee of the said company.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA now moved for leave to
enter a verdict for the defendant on the ground that
he was not indebted to the plaintiffs, and that he had
never employed them to survey the line in question. It
appeared that the plaintiffs were employed by two persons
of the name of Smith and Ryder, who were described on.
the prospectuses as engineers tothe company. On behalf
of the plaintiffs, it was endeavoured to be shown upon the
trial that in the case of persons so employed by the
engineer, it was the general usage for them to
for payment from the company, and not to the
engineer. The witness, however, called- to prove
this " general usage," could not state or particularise
any case in which such usage or . custom pre-
vatted, and in cross-examination stated, that "it pre-
vailed in large companies, but not in small ones." The
Learned Counsel now . contended that such evidence
should not have been left to the jury, as
it was rot sufficiently explicit to substantiate the fact.
The plaintiffs had also sent their account to Messrs.
Smith and Ryder, and in consequence of its not having
been paid, they had threatened them with legal pro-
ceedings for the recovery of the same, thereby clearly
showing that they did not consider the defendant in-
debted to them, nor was any agreement produced in
which it could be shown that either the defendant or
the company were at all liable for the payment
of the plaintiffs. Upon these grounds, therefore, it was
contended that leave should be given to enter a verdict
for the defendant.
The Court stated that they would take time for the
purpose of referring to Mr. Justice Coltman's note upon
the evidence given at the trial.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Now. 3.

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Sir Taos.
WILDE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice PATTISON,
and Mr. Justice V. WiLma)ls.)
OATHS OF ABJURATION AND SUPREMACY.—On the
assembling of the Court this morning, the oaths of abju-
ration and supremacy were severally administered by
the Clerk of the Court to the Lord Chief Justice and
Mr. Vaughan Williams.