The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

SMITH V. THE EAST IIf.DIA COMPANY.-JUDGMENT.

His Horioua also gate judgment in this case,
which was argued before him during at, last term.
The plaintiff instituted the present suit against the
East India Company under the following circum-
stances the month of July, 1832, the plaintiff
arrived at Madras as commander of the company's
ship London, which was then what is termed a clean
ship, that is, cleared and without any cargo. The
plaintiff proposed to become the purchaser of certain
cotton which had accumulated in the company's
warehouses, and to trade to China (to which country
the company's :ships usually traded) upon his own
account. The company's affairs at Madras were
carried on under the direction of their agents, who
constituted what was called the " Marine Board and
Commercial Committee," and the terms upon which
the commanders of vessels traded for the company
were these :—the tonnage was divided into five parts,
two-fifths of which were for the benefit of the captain
and the officers of the ship, but 102 tons was what
o
asfiawwutmftoaac calledshnsohseu)frrt
eeifge but
usuallyrht
vhhtpeaeeradbichsovafaiuorltdtreghgoa2et
hlasd.
:no
per
company,
soroupmrn
acitngponhaahnygfn:
reyseat,
ngopdathuahnttlyadidlti
tenofpaouotrrsifoucti
raho
require,l
portion
captaincompany.
t rilar
practice)
eim ce he-
was for the captain to sign a bond to secure the
The plaintiff having proposed C) purchase the cotton
in question by a letter written on the 13th of July,
by Mr. Chamier, the secretary of the Government
Board, to Mr. Underwood, the secretary of the Marine
Board, the plaintiff's.offer was accepted, on condition
that he should pay such freight, on their permission
to occupy their three-fifths of the vessel, as they
should see fit to demand, for which he would be re-
quired to enter into a sufficient agreement. On the
16th of July this letter was communicated to Captain
Smith by the secretary of the Marine Board, who
stated that the cotton would occupy a part of the
company's three-fifths, and that he would be required
to enter into a sufficient agreement for payment of
such freight as the company hould think fit. To this
the plaintiff objected, but the cotton was ultimately
placed on board the vessel, on the understanding from
the Marine board that he was not to pay freight for it.
On the usual bond being tendered to the plaintiff for
his signature, he discovered that he was thereby
bound to pay freight fin. the cotton, but upon the
assurance of the secretary and officers of the Marine
board, with whom he had a meeting, that such a
clause was merely a matter of form and would not
be enforced, he signed the bond. The plaintiff pro-
ceeded to Canton and sold the cotton, for which he
refused to pay freight ; upon which the company
proceeded upon the bond, and brought an action to
recover the freight, and the plaintiff then filed
his bill for the purpose of staying those pro•
ceedings. When the case was argued, the
chief question raised was whether the Marine
Board wa, so authoristd by that company to act for
them, so that the letter written by them to the
plaintiff after the bond was executed, and the assur-
ance that lie was not to pay freight, were sufficient
to override that of the bond; and, if not, whether the
plaintiff knew that their authority was limited to
ordinary cases, and that they were not authorised to
act on their own discretion in a case like the present.
It was argued for the plaintiff that he was bound
to act under the Marine board solely, that he
knew no other authority, and therefore the company
were bound by their acts, and an innocent party
ought
was
anrogtued
fortosufftehre in
defecnadseantosf,
thatth sinceeirm theisco letternduct.
It
written to the plaintiff, acquainting him that he was
to pay freight, no authority had :been given by the
Government Board to alter that stipulation. The
plaintiff was well aware that the Marine Board had
no absolute power to act of themselves, and if there-
fore they exceeded their authority the company were
not bound by their acts. The plaintiff might have a
remedy against them, but he could not, against the
company, claim an exemption from paying freight.
His Honour, in giving judgment, went at consider-
able length into the case, and although he
thought that the East India Company could
not well have done otherwise than they had
done, and although they had acted with great
fairness throughout, and most honourably, yet that
Captain Smith had made out a complete case against
them, and was entitled to the decree he asked, with
costs.

The Court then proceeded to hear motions.
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
COLLETT V. CURLING.

This case, which has so often been before the
Court, came on to-day on demurrer. It was an
action for use and occupation, by the defendant, an
attorney, of chambers at NO. 4, "Waterloo-place,
Pall- mall. The plaintiff had demurred to the
defendlnt's pleas.

Mr. ATKINSON appeared in support of the demurrer.
It appeared that the defendant had not delivered his
paper books in proper time, and was not entitled to be
heard.
Mr. Luau submitted that defendant had delivered
his paper books, and ought to be heard, as he was
ready to deposit the costs occasioned by his neglect.
Lord DENMAN—This may be so, but it is clear the
books were not deposited in proper time by the
defendant, and the other party was bound to deliver
them for him. 'We know quite enough of the case of
Collett v. Curling, and we . cannot hear you, Mr.
Lush. The proceedings of the defendant are most
vexatious. Judgment must be given for the plaintiff,

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

ALTON V. RUSSELL.

This action was brought by the assignees of Mr.
Nash, a solicitor, against Mr. Charles Russell, the
Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company,
to recover his costs in conducting certain prosecu-
tions.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Hawkins appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., and Mr.
Keating, for the company.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said that Mr. Nash was
formerly a clerk in the office of Messrs. Maples, of
the Old Jewry, who were at the time when the occur-
rences, out of which this action arose, took place,
solicitors to the Great Western Railway Company.
In 1845 a great number of very serious robberies
were committed upon the railway, and Mr. Seymour
Clark, the managing superintendent at thc:Paddington
station, who had received large powers from the
directors for the purpose of detecting the guilty
Parties sent for Mr. Nash in July or August in that
year, and consulted him upon the subject. Mr. Clark
had received a great, number of anonymous letters
from a person who afterwards turned out to be May-
nard, with reference to a case which had been stolen
containing property worth 2,0001., and Mr. Nash
was directed to take steps to find out the author of
the letters, and a carte blanche was given to
him indemnifying him from all expenses that
might be incurred. In the course of the
two days Maynard was arrested, and in consequence
of a statement which he made, Mr. Nash had a per-
son of the name of Waring, and also his wife, taken
into custody and brought to Messrs. Maple and Coin
pany's office. Mr. Nash was very much astonished
on being informed by one of the partners that he was
not to proceed further in the investigation, the di-
rectors having sent instructions to that effect, and the
public would also be astonished when it was stated
that the cause of that determination was that any
further investigation would bring the name of a gen-
tleman, who was a client of one of the directors,
before the public as having compounded a felony, he
having lost property on the railway to the value of
40,000/. Mr. Nash, however, said that the guilty
parties bad been brought to light, and that if they ,
did not follow up the investigation all further clue
to them would be lost, and in all probability Waring
and his wife would bring an action against him. Mr.
Stevens, one of the firm, stated that he was not to
make himself uneasy abotat the matter, because if
he did the company would indemnify him. Ac-
cordingly, Waring and his wife were dismissed.
The present plaintiff, however, advised him to
go on with his investigation, and, if necessary,
re-arrest Waring, and several letters passed between
them and interviews had on the subject. Mr. Nash
then proceeded, and the consequence was that May
nerd and two other parties were arrested, tried,
convicted, and sent out of the Auntry. Waring sub-
sequently brought an action, but only obtained a
verdict against Mr. Nash for one farthing. Mr. Nash
had expended out of his own pocket, in prosecuting
the inquiry, 5001, and the amount he sought to re-
cover was between GOO/. and 7001., which the com-
pany had refused to pay.
Mr. Nash was called, and deposed to the facts.
After a consultation between the parties, a verdict
was agreed to for the plaintiff subject to his claim
being revised by a gentleman inl t.he. profession, the.
company havirg adnbiiiettcetdedthtoatthpearritiofftunhtaodf ahisclacll
against them, but o
as exorbitant. A verdict was then entered for the
plaintiff.

EXCHEQUER.—('PHIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi I'rius before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and Common Juries.)
WINDER V. BIGGS.

The plaintiff in this case was a travelling jeweller,
and the, defendant • an extensive cow-keeper in the
Edgware-road.

The action was brought to recover compensation
for damages sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence