The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
on
The Court took motions to-day till e o'clock, when the
new trial paper was called on, and one case taken in it
which did not present any feature of interest, either public
or private.
In the course of the day it was intimated that, owing to
the paucity of motions, the new trial paper would be pro-
ceeded with to-morrow (this day), notwithstanding it is the
last day of term.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron
PARKE and Common Juries.)
IRONSIDR AND ANOTHER v. WIIARTON.—RAILWAY
REPUDIATION.
This was an action for money paid for railway shares on
account of the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted, and
that he had never authorised the purchase.
Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. T. Jones, conducted the
case for the plaintffs; and Mr. Jervis appeared for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintiffs are brokers at Sheffield, and
the defendant a file-worker in the same place, and that on
the 3d of September last year the latter called upon the
former, and instructed them to purchase ten shares in the
Manchester and Southampton Railway. In the course of
the same afternoon, however, the son of the defendant called
by his father's direction, and begged that the purchase should
be for twenty instead of ten shares. On that evening the
plaintiffs wrote up to their agents, Messrs. Alsopp, to execute
the commission. Those gentlemen did so, and bought at
4/. 7s. 6d. premium, the deposit of 2/. being paid. The
Messrs. Alsopp wrote by post on the 4th, stating that they
had made the purchase, and the terms upon which it had
been made. This letter was received by the plaintiffs on the
sth, and on that day they apprised the defendant of their
having carried out his instructions. About the end of
October the scrip was issued, and then the plaintiffs called
upon the defendant to take up his twenty shares. Instead of
doing this, however, he applied, through a friend of the
name of Barker, for time, accompanied with a promise to
pay after Christmas. The plaintiffs acceded to the request.
In the month of January, the defendant was called upon for
the performance of his promise, but he then called upon his
friend Mr. Barker, and stated, that as many respectable men
were repudiating their bargains, so should he in this
particular transaction. Barker remonstrated with him
upon the dishonourable character of such a proceeding, but
without any effect. The plaintiff's, upon hearing this, wrote
a letter to the defendant, threatening to post his name, un-
less he at once came and took up his shares, for they were
not at that period aware that there was any remedy in the
shape of an action, at law. Matters, however, went on until
the month of Mardi last, when the plaintiffs sent a clerk of
the name of Belcher to demand payment for the shares. The
defendant on that occasion denied all knowledge of the
plaintiffs and the shares, that he had ever had any trans-
actions with them, or that he had anything to do with the
shares. In consequence of this treatment the plaintiff's re-
solved upon instituting the present proceedings.
On behalf of the defendant it was contended that the
shares were the shares of the witness Barker, and that they
had not been bought by the plaintiffs on account of the de-
fendant. This point, however, after the examination of
Barker, the Learned Counsel for the defendant abandoned.
He also contended that an unreasonable time had elap.ed
between the date of the instructions to purchase and the
alleged purchase, inasmuch as that if there had been any in-
structions at all, they had been given on the 15th of August,
whilst it had been admitted that no purchase had been made
until the 4th of September.
The son of the defendant was examined, but in his cross-
examination he proved that he had c,illed as recently as Sa-
turday last upon Mr. linwin, of Sheffield, the plaintiffs'
attorney, and offered a compromise.
Mr. Baron PARKE, in leaving the case to the jury, said
that the first question was, whether the defendant had given
any order for this purchase; of that fact there could be no
doubt after the testimony of his own son; next came the
question whether it was material as to whether the instruc-
tions were given on the 15th of August or the 3d of Septem-
ber. Now, as to this it was clearly not material, because in
any of the subsequent correspondence which the defendant
had had with the plaintiffs he had never raised any such
point as an objection. Indeed, he had never raised it at all
until the action had been brought. These were matters of
consideration for the jury, and they must determine upon
them.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages,
1291.

ARCHES COURT, June 11.
(Before Sir H. J. FUST.)
TrrE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY FARNALL V. CRAIG,
CLERK.
This is a criminal proceeding against the Rev. Mr. Craig
for alleged incontinence. On a former court-day a defensive
allegation was given in, the admission of which was opposed ;
and after hearing counsel on both sides, the Court directed
it to he reformed. It was now brought in as reformed, and
again objected to, on the ground that the directions of the
Court had not been fully complied with.
The COURT directed further reformation.
GEILS V. GEILS.
This is a suit instituted by Lieutenant Geils against his
wife for a restitution of eonjugal rights. A defensive plea
alleging cruelty and adultery as a bar to the suit having
been admitted without opposition, a responsive allegation was
now offered on behalf of Lieutenant Geils, which, after being
debated, was directed to be reformed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

An odd case of alleged forgery was heard before
Alderman Musgrove. A young man named George King
was brought up in the custody of an officer, charged with
having forged the name of Mr. Thomas Wheeler, of
Newbury, to a bill of exchange for 201.
Mr. Viner, solicitor, of Ironmongers' Hall, appeared
fur the prosecution, and a solicitor appeared for the
defendant.

Mr. R. Knight, clerk to Mr. Birkett, jun., of Bell-
court, Mincing-lane, wine merchant, stated that on the
2d of February he received the bill produced fur 201.,
purporting to be drawn by George King, upon and
accepted by Thomas Wheeler, of Newbury, Berks, and
indu orsed by George King, to J. R. Humphery, and by
RcioramePatletory, from whom
witness received the bill in-
at the same tirasie.s employer. He received other bills
istr..tmrltation havingsLbeen made to
Mr. Wheeler, by
" Newinbnczu
non-payment of the bill wheett,erbitoethOneSaepqpnibillo:teionof:_the
Marchh 31, 1846.
ing letter was received in awit became due" the follow-
,t Sir,—Your letter of this
astonished
me. I beg to say, in answer, that I have 48n
due in favour of Mr. King, or any one else
THOMAS otieet"t
ic.t
know nothin , and et
a
for I g whatever of the
transaction.—I am' Sir,
yours respectfully,,,
WHEELER,
must be a forgery,

Mr. r
Charles Daniel
James Birkett,a
es n
i jilenr. stated, .that inconsequence
of Mr. Birkett's instructions, he wrote in that gentle-
man's name to Mr. Wheeler, for payment of the amount
of the bill, and he received the following answer :
" ,iBb.toGg
inform to
.
4 0 Sir,—lne, thatanswer
i toev ye onu‘
orNwcsaeeof
acceptance
ptuhtrai,
cs-nI morning,3dYue2hl
ioofavour of
t
any person whatever. With respect to this bill, (which
I presume to be the same), I first had a letter from a
wine-merchant, living, I think, in Park-street. I was
then in town, and saw him, and told him I knew
nothing whatever of it. Then, the latter end of March,
I received a letter from a Mr. Daniel Birkett, jun., the
same person, I suppose, that has now employed you. In
answer I told him then, that it quite astonished me, as I
knew of no such bill, nor was it my accceptance, but a
forgery.
" Therefore, I have nothing to do with it whatever.
You may as well sue any other persou. You had
better look to the drawer of the bill, King, or whoever
it may be.—Yours, &c. THOS. WHEELER."
Witness, in consequence of having received the above
letter, called upon a Mr. Weston first, when he learned
the defendant's residence. "I then," said- witness,
"called upon King, and told him I came on account of
panreseoveetrdueil:ailil of
dtb2ao.
that
Mr.
Nsiasbid he could
ettexpeetendoitt
wpaoyeldit
be
Paid, and I told him he had better take down my name I

hospital been properly fumigated and purified prior to
its re-occupation, and had the two patients there seized
with fever been kept from all intercourse with the
densely-populated and closely-built town, no bad corse-
quenccs would have been experienced at Bona Vista from
the visit of the Eclair.

These facts seem completely to overthrow the opinion
so decidedly expresssd by Sir W. Burnett—" That the
fever in question arose from causes totally distinct from
infection ; that it was, in fact, the usual remittent fever
of the coast, produced by the influence of marsh miasma ta,
heightened by other causes, such as the exposure of the
men, and the excesses committed by them." In the course
of his dispatch to the Secretary of the Admiralty, Sir W.
Burnett says,—"lf it can be fully and satisfactorily shown
that any person who had visited the ship or tents where
the sick were placed contracted the fever and com-
municated it to others, and they to other persons in suc-
cession, who had never visited the ships or the sick, then
there can be no reason to doubt the infectious nature of
the decease, but if nothing of this kind has taken place,
then the conclusion must be, that the disease is not infec-
tious, and is therefore incapable of being communicated;
in either ease settling this long-contested question."
The opinion of Sir William appears to have been satis-
factorily set aside by the facts already adduced, and it is
seen that the fever was contagious as well as infectious.

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 11.
THE JUSTICES OF ST. ALILLNS V. STURT,-7CRI3IINAL INFOR3IA

Mr. Sergeant SHEE moved for a rule 'nisi, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be issued against a
gentleman of the name of Sturt, on the ground of writing
and publishing several letters, containing libellous matter in
regard to the conduct of the plaintiffs as magistrates and ad-
ministrators of justice in the borough of St. Albans. The
Learned Gentleman read extracts from the letters in question,
which charged the magistrates of St. Albans with corrupt
and improper motives in the administration of justice, and
that the only object they cared for was pounds, shillings,
and pence. On the other side he quoted several affidavits of
the complainants, denying in the strongest terms the allega-
tions as altogether unfounded,' and proceeding from malicous
and vindictive motives.

The COURT did not think the evidence adduced sufficiently
strong to justify granting the application, and the rule was
accordingly refused.

WEISS r. LUMLEY.
The greater portion of the day was occupied in an argu.
ment, conducted by Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, in sup-
port of a demurrer to a plea put in by the defendant, in
answer to a declaration of the plaintiff respecting a breach
of contract therein alleged against the former.
The plaintiff is Madame Weiss, and the defendant is Mr.
Lumley, the lessee of the Italian Opera-house, and the
breach of contract set forth arose out of an agreement being
entered into between the parties for the performance of the
corps of dancing children, the "Danseuses Viennoises," and,
under which agreement the performers in question were
brought over into this country. The plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages, because the terms of the contract were not
carried out, by the children not being allowed to appear at
her Majesty's Theatre on their arrival, thereby depriving
them of the advantage of the celebrity which such an
appearance would have secured, while, at the same time, the
agreement prevented their appearing elsewhere.
The defendant denied that any such breach of contract
as that alleged had taken place: The argument throughout
was of a dry and technical character, and turned mainly on
the construction of the terms of the agreement.
Mr. HIGGINS was heard against the demurrer, and in sup-
port of the plea, when
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.