The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-06 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY,

Price

FRASER V. JONES AND OTHERS.
This was a bill filed on behalf of the Glamorganshire
Banking Company, with the view of establishing a
mortgage against the defendants, Messrs. Bailey
Jones, John Jones, and John Powell, which had
been given to the banking company for a. consideration
of a sum of 6501. The question at issue was whether
the banking company were trust mortgagees, or whether
John Jones had not a prior claim to 2001. of the sum.
It appeared that in September, 1842, B. Jones and Mr.
Powell applied to the company in question to advance a
sum of 6001., in security of which he offered
them a mortgage on certain house property, on which
Powell represented that he had a mortgage of 1,801)1,
and further stated that he had deposited this mortgage
with Mr. J. Jones for a sum of 1,0001., which be was
indebted to him. The company advanced the sum de-
manded, requiring, merely as security, seven promisicry
notes, which were accepted by Mr. B. Jones, and en-
dorsed by Mr. Powell. A mortgage was executed, in
which the former mortgage was mentioned, as well as its
lodgement with Mr. John Jones, as also that another
mortgage existed to a gentleman named Parry. It
was alleged on the part of the plaintiff that
when the advance was made there was no debt of 1,0001.
due to Mr. J. Jones, nor any deposit of the mortgage
deed. It was also alleged that the object of Powell was
to obtain a priority of claim over the bank.

135
483'

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
AGENCY.-KEELEY AND ANOTHER V. WRAY.

This case was tried at Nottingham before Mr. Justice
Coleridge, when..
verdic
aret found for
manufacturersthe
:et plaintiff fo
2101. Gs. The plaintiffs
Notting-
ham, and the defendant is in partnership with a gentle-
...vas
man named Graham, of Philadelphia. A Mr. Taylor,
of Liverpool, who has since become bankrupt, acted as
Graham,
and ordered
the agent of Messrs. Wray and
large quantities of goods for them, for which he paid,
destination. Theinvoices
order to be shipped for their
and which were transmitted to him at Liverpool, in
were made out in his name,
ham, of
and not to Messrs. Wray and Gra , forament
At
the
and the firm looked to him,
trial a witness of the name of Steadman proved
the goods which they supplied to his order.
that Mr. Graham visited Nottingham, and ex-
pressed a wish to be introduced to persons
inquired his terms; to
was a member. Mr. Steadman
who could supply the wants of the firm of which lie
which he replied, that his firm wanted no credit; that
Taylor was their agent; that he had monledy belonging
pay ready
to it in his possession, and that heN would
money. Graham selected goods which were at once
paid for, and further or ders were given by Taylor. The
peared, Taylor had neglected to pay, altgh he had
h
action was for the balance of an account which, it ap-
received money for the purpose of paying for all goods
u
supplied to the firm through him.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE referred at some length to
his
notes of the trial. From the evidence adduced, it ap-
peared that Wray stated, on one occasion, when the
plaintiff complained that the accounts of the firm were
paid in a very irregular manner, that he was sorry for
it, and exonerated the firm from blame, as Taylor had had money in his hands some time to discharge them.
It further appeared that the invoices were made out thus:
Keeley and Co. in account with Wray and Co., and that
money had been enclosed to the plaintiffs on such an in-
voice. He (Mr. Justice Coleridge), in directing the
jury, left it to them to say whether the custom of the
trade did or did not warrant the plaintiffs in looking to
the defendants for the payment of the balance of their
account.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and
a new trial had, on the ground that there was scarcely
any evidence to go to the jury, and that there was no
plonintthaetfiirssstueplwanaes:
hweintchmwtehnodmedthuelatcoitntwraacstmwadans
authority for the verdict which they returned. The
made.sElae
between Messrs. Keeley and Taylor, and that Taylor
had no authority to pledge the credit of Messrs. Wray
and Graham.
Lord DENMA.N considered that there was sufficient
evidence to go to the jury, and refused the application.
HOLE V. 'WRITE AND OTHERS.-DEPOSITING PROPERTY
AS SECURITY BEFORE A FIAT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict found for the defendants in this case
should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground of the verdict being against evidence and mis-
direction on the part of the Learned Judge who tried
the case. The action was tried at the last
Liverpool Assizes before Mr. Justice Cresswell,
and was one of trover to recover the value of a quantity
of hops. The pleas were not guilty and not possessed—
the question at issue being whether the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover the value of a quantity of hops deposited
with him on the 3d of May last year, under the follow-
ing circumstances :—The plaintiff was formerly a brewer
at Manchester, and whilst engaged in that occupation he
employed a clerk named Boddington. lie also carried
on the business of a maltster in Bucks, which he conti-
nued to follow after relinquishing his occupation
as a brewer in Manchester, being in the habit
of sending hops to Manchester for sale, Boddington
acting as his agent, and the plaintiff being in the habit
of frequently visiting Manchester, in order to receive the
produce from Boddington. Boddington carried on
business on his own account, and, in the spring of last
year, speculated largely in hops. He had pur-
chased large quantities from the warehousemen
with whom they were deposited for sale.
At the trial it appeared from the evidence of Bodding
ton's brother that, observing him very uneasy for some
days before the 2d of May, he asked him the reason.
Ile at first declined to reply to the question, but on his
brother inquiring if he had been using any of Mr. Hole's
money, he, after some hesitation, replied that he had.
The brother said it was a serious matter and must be
settled immediately in some way or other. He then
went to Mr. Harrison, the former partner of Mr. Hole,
who had continued to carry on the business, and told him
how the matter stood. Mr. Potter, the plaintiff's solicitor,.
was consulted, and a meeting took place, at which both
r. Potter and
_lllr. lioddington's brother, insisted that

CARPMEAL V. POWIS.
This was a cause in which the plaintiff sought to
amend and rectify a settlement which he had executed
in favour of the defendant, Letitia Powis. The facts
were simply these :—Tee defendant, a lady of property,
had agreed to sell the plaintiff two freehold houses of
which she was possessed for a sum of 1,8001 The plain.
tiff, finding it more convenient to pay an annuity than
the purchase money, intimated the same to Miss Powis,
who seemed satisfied with the proposal. Her brother,
Mr. Thomas Powis, was then authorised to ascertain
what would be the amount of annuity granted on
the life of a spinster of fifty-eight years, the age
of Miss Powis ; and the plaintiff agreed to give one
per cent. more than Government would give. The ques-
tion was answered by a gentleman in the Government
office, named Cuthbert, who stated on a slip of paper
that the sum would be 1581. 9s. 6d., and the defendant
then offered 1761 10s. 6d. This occurred on the 3d of
October, 1839, and on the Bth of the same month the
deed was executed. The plaintiff, however, having per-
ceived, some time after, from a statement in the 7 imes,
that Government gave lower annuities on female lives
than on those of males, and that consequently he had
given a larger annuity than he intended to have done,
adopting as a mode of calculation the information he had
received as to the amount that would be granted by Go-
vernment.

Lord LANGDALE took time to consider his judgment.
His Lordship has fixed Saturday as the day in future
for short causes, consent causes, and unopposed petitions,
and for general petitions the 24th instant.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY).
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.)
Ills HONOUR, after disposing of the unopposed peti-
tions and short causes in his paper, proceeded with the
further arguments in the part-heard cause petition of
;GRACE V. WEBB.
We gave the facts of this petition yesterday, the
question in which was whether the petitioner was en-
titled under the will of the testator in the cause to an
annuity of 201. or to one of 401. The Master had re-
ported in favour of the annuity of 20/.
His HONOUR, at the conclusion of the arguments, gave
judgment overruling the Master's report, the effect of
which would be to give the petitioner an annuity of 401.
The Court was occupied the remainder of the morning
with cause petitions.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
HEMP V. HURST.
His UoNouß ordered this cause to stand over till to-
morrow.

DUNCOMBE, M.P., V. LEVY.
This was a case in which the defendant bad taken
proceedings against the plaintiff to recover 1,2001., which
was due to him by the plaintiff. It was alleged on behalf
of the plaintiff that a covenant existed, executed at the
time of contracting the debt, to the effect that the defen•-
dant should not proceed against him for the recovery of
the debt by law.
His HONOUR said it appeared to him that in this
cause there were two judgments, and the execution was
carried down to the last. Considering the questions
that had been raised at the bar, he could not now decide
in favour of Mr. Levy. It was quite evident that Mr.
Levy had ordered Mr. Lewis to proceed with the execu-
tion against the plaintiff, who alleged that, by that very
act he forfeited the debt. The only question he had to
decide was whether he should extinguish the debt of
1,2001., or grant indulgence to Mr. Levy. He would for
the present suspend his judgment, and confine himself to
the opinion he had expressed.
LONEGAN V. SCHOLEFIELD, AND LONEGAN V. LONEGAN.
This cause came before his Hotour on an original
supplemental bill, and the object of the suit was to dis-
pose of property to the value of 12,0001, conveyed by
the testator in a marriage settlement. The object of the
present application was to obtain a decree, by consent,
to have an inquiry before the Master.
His HONOUR, after some deliberation, granted the
inquiry.