The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

REWAN PERSAD V. BIISSIMAT RADRA BEBEE.

Mr. C. BULLER. opened this appeal from the decision
of the Supreme Court of BQngal, the arguments in which
occupied their Lordships the whole day.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 3.

The Lord Chancellor sat in the Old Hall, Lincoln's
Inn, this day, at ten o'clock.

RIGBY V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This case, which stood on the paper to be spoke to
on the minutes, was, upon the application of Mr. Wood,
ordered to stand over to Monday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after disposing of several
short applications, proceeded to hear appeals, with which
he was occupied the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dec. 3.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
HEATH V. CHADWICK. _

The arguments in this case were resumed and con-
cluded to-day. The case came before his Honour upon
a demurrer put in by the defendant to the plaintiff's bill.
His HONOUR, at the conclusion of the arguments,
gave judgment, overruling the demurrer.

JARROD V. MOOR.
The arguments in this case occupied the Court the
remainder of the morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 3.
A RAILWAY TAVERN EILL.-BASANT V. GREY.

This was an action to recover 131/. 18s. 9d., the
amount of a tavern bill. The defendant denied his Ha-
bility beyond the sum of 201., which he had paid into
Court.
Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Wills were for the plain-
tiff.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA stated the case to the jury. He
said the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Basant, was the landlord
of the Boar and Castle Tavern, Oxford-street, and the
defendant, Mr. Aden Grey, was a solicitor, and a mem-
ber of the firm of Messrs. Grey and Illidge, solicitors,
of Great Tower-street. Mr. Grey was solicitor to the
Derby, Uttoxeter, and Stafford Railway, which was
thrown out by the Standing Orders' Committee.
The action was brought to recover the sum
of 131/. 18s. 9d. for refreshments of all kinds
which were supplied to the defendant, and to a
large party of clerks and surveyors, of which he had the
management, from the 26th of November last until the
15th of December. At eleven o'clock at night, on the
26th of November, several persons came to the house of
the plaintiff, and asked for an apartment and accommo-
dation for the night, representing themselves that night
or the next day as connected or employed by the Derby,
Uttoxeter, and Stamford Railway Company. They
were received, and next day had breakfast, occupied
additional rooms, and denied themselves, during the
whole of their stay, none of the luxuries and comforts
which the house afforded, and as if they had abundance
of funds at their command. On the next day the de-
fendant arrived upon the scene, and brought a number
of assistants—namely, surveyors and clerks—with him,
and at once assumed, from the way in which he con-
ducted himself, the management of the party. They
occupied four of the best sitting-rooms and six bed-
rooms, and they breakfasted, and lunched, and dined,
and had refreshments at all hours of the day and night.
Twenty or thirty visitors came from time to time, who
were invited to take refreshments, and the orders for all
were) almost given in every instance by the defendant.
The party were engaged in preparing the plans of the
railway for deposit at the Board of Trade, on the me-
morable 30th of November. 5/. ss. a day was
charged for the apartments, and 21. 2s. a day for ser-
vants, and it would be shown in evidence that the whole
of the charges were perfectly correct, and such as were
charged in all taverns, and consumed by persons who got
free quarters in the way this party did. The defendant
had paid 20/. into Court and would no doubt contend
that he was not liable to pay more than this sum, and
that the provisional committee were liable and ought to
pay it, of whom the plaintiff knew nothing at all. Pro-
visional committee men who drank none of his wine—
who did not sleep in his beds. Of course he did not
look to the provisional committee. The defendant was
a respectable man, a member of a respectable house, and
a solicitor to a railway, but when applied to for the
amount he said, " I am only the solicitor to the Com-
pany, you must get it from the provisional committee."
He borrowed 6/. from the plaintiff, and gave him a
I 0 U for the amount, which was cautiously worded.
It was headed " Derby, Uttoxeter, and Stafford Rail-
way," and was signed " Aden Grey of the firm of Grey
and Ellidge, solicitor to the railway. No doubt he in •
tended that the amount of the loan should be covered by
the 301. he had paid into court ; but, no doubt, his Lord-
ship would tell them that if a number of parties went
into a tavern and had refreshments, and if one assumed
to be the master and manager, and ordered refreshments
which were consumed by the party, that he was respon-
sible, and ought to pay the cost ; that they were all
equally liable, but that one person ought to be sued ;
and if the defendant considered it was unfair to sue him
alone, he must get rid of his sole liability by a plea of
abatement, giving the names of the parties who were
jointly liable with him, but there could be no doubt that
he was the principal of the party, and was clearly liable.
The following witnesses were then called :
Mr. George Murphy, surveyor, living in the Kent-
road, deposed that, in November last year, he was em-
ployed on the Derby, Uttoxeter, and Stafford Railway,
and went to the Boar and Castle on Wednesday, the 26th
of November, where he was joined by the defendants on
the 27th. He came with others, who were clerks and
surveyors. With the exception of about ten minutes he
was employed with him at the house of the plaintiff until
the 30th of November, when the plans were to be de-
posited at the Board of Trade. The defendant was
constantly there superintending the work and giving
instructions. The numbers there varied from 15 to 30
during their stay. On the first day only one room was
occupied, but afterwards three rooms and the coffee•
room were used. They slept there, and many
of them worked all night, and all had re-
freshments both day and night. Mr. Grey par-
took of the refreshments, and generally occupied the
head of the table. If the party wanted anything they
ordered it, but the defendant had the management of
the party, and sanctioned all the orders. After return-
ing from depositing the plans on the 30th of November,
which was on Sunday, the defendant stated, in reply to
the plaintiff, who made an application to him with re-
spect to his account, that it should be settled. (The bill
was handed to the witness, and he said he believed it was
correct, with the exception of one item, namely, 5/. ss.
for apartments on the first day they went, but on that day
they only occupied one room.) An application was
made on Sunday, the 30th, to the defendant by the
plaintiff respecting the charge for servants. The
plaintiff asked if he should include it in the bill, and the
defendant replied in the affirmative, adding, on the
plaintiff inquiring the amount he felt disposed to give,
that he might charge 21. 2s. a day.
By Mr. Justice ERLE—No previous arrangement was
made by him with the defendant to meet him at the
Boar and Castle.
Cross-examined by Mr. M. CHAMBERS—He was sent
by Mr. Higgins, the engineer to the company, whose
house was full, and he understood the party were sent
to the Boar and Castle, to remain until they were re-
quired. He was one of the four who first went to the
plaintiff's house. On seeing him he stated that they
had been recommended to the house by Mr. Higgins,
and told him they required one private sitting room.
Took no plans with him. The ten minutes referred to
were devoted to the plans of the Oxford and Western
line. On the 27th from four to six surveyors connected
with that line came, but those who came first were con

netted with the Uttoxeter line, and were in the employ-
ment of Mr. Higgins. Those engaged on the Oxford
and Western remained about one day ; but whilst
they remained those connected with both lines enjoyed
refreshments in common. Never heard that the de-
_ _

fendant had anything to do with the Oxfordand Western
line. The defendant said if the plans were prepared in
time, with the aid of the Oxford and Western men, that
he should divide 50/. among them, and treat them to
champagne. The wine was ordered, with the consent of
Mr. Grey, and it was received, and he (witness) drank
part of it. Never heard that the plaintiff made any ob-
jection to supplying it. The defendant told the plaintiff
not to put the champagne in the bill, as he should pay
that himself, as he did not wish it to be seen in the bill.
The plans were incomplete, and full of errors ; they. were
deposited, but the Standing Orders Committee rejected
them. Mr. Higgins had become a bankrupt, and had not
paid him his claim in full. They had a very
good dinner on the Sunday, after depositing
the plans, and that was the occasion on which they
were treated with the champagne.—(Laughter.)
He was paid a certain sum per day by Mr. Iliggins with
so much for expenses—eating, drinking, travelling, &c.
His engagement terminated on the 30th of November.
Re-examined—The room they were shown into was
the best in the house, and looked out back and front.
The defendant used the room like every one else. The
defendant went with the plans to the Board of Trade.
Edward Knuttley, examined by Mr. Sergeant Simi.—
Became a waiter at the Boar and Castle on the 29th of
November, the defendant and about ten other persons
dined on Sunday, the defendant occupying the chair.
The defendant gave him orders, and said on one or two
occasions to him that the gentlemen were to have what
they required. He was led to believe that Mr. Grey
was the responsible person. Brandy and water, cigars,
and slippers for the young surveyors were supplied on
his account.—(Roars of laughter.)
Cross-examined—Was not in the habit of receiving
orders from the chairman, because those who filled that
position had frequently nothing to do with the dinner.
except in their official capacity. He generally received
orders from a wine steward. Many of them had soda-
water, lemonade, and some preferred gin to brandy. A

party dined on Monday afte-r Mr. Gre—y left.
Horatio Knight, head-waiter at the tavern at the time
in question, deposed that the defendant took the head of
the table. He always understood that he was the bead
of the party. He generally gave him orders. The bill