The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-18 00:00:00

were re-delivered, but at too late an hour for the market
that day, which was Saturday th© 7th of August. The
plaintiff was obliged to keep them over till Tuesday,
when they were so much deteriorated that they did not
bring above half price.
Mr. HILL, upon the part of the defendants, called wit-
nesses, who showed that the goods were delivered at the
station in Southampton, on the 6th of August, and were
put in the goods train, which usually started at eight
o'clock in the evening. They were sent, by Prieux, the
agent for the Commercial Steam Company, who made the
charge of 121. 10s. 10d. The way bill was delivered to
the guard of the train at eight o'clock. The clerk cf
Prieux had found out his mistake, and arrived at the
station at ten minutes after eight, to correct it ; but the
clerk refused to interfere, although the train did not
start until seventeen minutes after that hour. The clerk
sent up a memorandum by the mail train, which arrived
in London before six ; but it did not reach the hands of
the principal clerk till ten o'clock, at which
time the goods had been sent out and brought back
again. The Learned Counsel contended that the plain-
tiff had no claim against the defendants. Had he any
claim at all it was upon the Commercial Steam Packet
Company.
The plaintiff proved the value of the fruit, which, had
it arrived early enough for the market, would have been
55., and that they were sold, some for 45., some 35., but
the greater part at only Is. The average loss was bout
half, or 2s. 6d.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
321.45.

NICHOLS V. LYLE.

Mr. JARVIS stated that the plaintiff was a gentleman
residing at Merton, Surrey. The defendant was a gen-
tleman who resided in Cornwall, and was largely en-
gaged in mining speculations. The parties were intimate
friends, and the plaintiff, having implicit faith in the de-
fendant's judgment, honour, and integrity, was induced,
upon his representations, to enter into a contract i'or the
purchase of thirty shares in the Wheal Mary Mine for
2521., and five shares in the Wheal Julia for 173/.
The shares were delivered, and the 425/. paid by bills,
two of which were acceptances of Mr. Hale, which were
the subject of the present action. In consequence of sub-
sequent information, the plaintiff was very anxious to
rescind the contract. The shares were utterly worthless.
However the defendant agreed to rescind the contract
and return the bills, but, after repeated applications, the
plaintiff found he could not get the bills, and he went
down to Cornwall. He went to the defendant's house
where he was engaged with a dinner party. He sent for
him, and had an interview, when, as the defendant said,
he could not then complete the contract by returning the
bills, the plaintiff wrote out and got the defendant to sign
a contract to return them forthwith, together with the ba-
lance of 211. 17s. 6d., which had been paid in cash. The
money was paid and all the other bills but the two of
Hale's, which had been retained until after he had be-
come bankrupt. The bills were for 100/. and 78/. 2s. 6d.,
and were accepted by a gentleman who was in lucrative
practice as a surgeon, and he would prove that at the
time the bills became due his credit was perfectly good,
and his accounts in such a state at his banker's that if
presented they would have been paid. Subsequently he
was induced to speculate very deeply in the shares of
the Southampton Docks. He went far beyond his depth,
and as the Company would not allow him to sacrifice
the 3,000/. he had already paid, he found it necessary to
become a bankrupt. For the damage sustained under
these circumstances the plaintiff now sought compensa-
tion. He understood the defence to be set up was an
imputation on the character of the plaintiff It was to
be insinuated that two interlineations which appeared on
the face of the latter contract had been made by him
after it had been signed by the defendant. He would
fearlessly put the document into the hands of the Jury,
and they would see at one glance that the insinuation
was wholly groundless, and that the mistake arose from
the hurry under which it had been written, but they
were made at the time.

The handwriting of the defendant to the two con-
tracts was proved, as also the payment to the plaintiff of
a cheque for 211. 17s. 6d. Several letters from the plaintiff
to the defendant, demanding the return of the bills were
read, copies having been proved, as the defendant did
not produce them according to the notice. Also a
demand for the bills upon a Mr. Pike, in September, 1839.
A Clerk from the London and Westminster Bank
proved that throughout 1839, Mr. James Hale had a
steady account with them, and during that year they
discounted freely for him.
In cross-examination it appeared that in 1840 the
plaintiff was in difficulties, and applied for, but did not
obtain, the benefit of the Insolvent Act.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, said he had a most
unpleasant duty to perform, for he feared the result of
action must be to show Mr. Nichols guilty of a fraud,
and his defence would be, that the contract for the shares
was not put an end to until December, 1839, and that in
the following March the bills were returned to the plain.
tiff. He could not prove this case without deeply im-
plicating the character of Mr. Nichols. He would prove
that the witness who spoke to the application to Mr.
Pike was at least mistaken. So also to the copies of let-
ters which he had proved. He would put in some,
dated about the very same time, speaking a very diffe-
rent language to those which had been read, and in
which no notice was taken of them at all. As to the
agreement which had been interlined, he was glad that
the Jury would see it ; they would see that the intern-
neations--the most important parts of them—the only
material parts—were written in a different ink, and
must have been written subsequently. He would show
that originally it was a mere memorandum of the bills
received on account of the sale of the shares. When
they saw the document they would easily see that all the
material parts of the writing had been squeezed in to
answer the purposes of the cause. He would also show
that the date had been altered ; it now appeared as if
dated April 15, 1839. They had letters of that very
date, and even subsequently, which showed clearly that
the parties had not met either at a dinner party or any
other place, at or about that date. He had it in his power
to show that, whatever might be the credit of Mr. Hale in
1839, he would prove that both of the bills were pre-
sented in due course as they became due, and that they
were both dishonoured. So much for the damage sus-
tained by their being retained by the defendant. In April,
1840, Mr. Nichols tiled his schedule in the Insolvent
Court, yet in it there was no mention made of these
bills as being owing to him. They had heard that Mr.
Hale became bankrupt ? Surely, then, they would have
expected that some claim would be made under the
fiat ; but no, no claim was made, and Mr. Hale himself
would tell them the reason ; in fact the bills were to have
been provided for by Mr. Nichols himself. If he proved
that case, he was sure that whatever might be the conse-
quences, the Jury would give a conscientious verdict.
Mr. PIKE, Secretary to the Wheal Julia Mining As-
sociation.—ln 1839 there were some shares in the He-
listian mine, standing in his name, the property of Mr.
Lyle. In the early part of 1839, the plaintiff told him
he had brought six Wheal Julia shares, which he wished
to have transferred to his own name, but the order
he brought was not sufficient. He heard no more of
them. That was in May 1839. He received some bills
from the defendant's solicitor on Dec. 24, 1839, amongst
which were the two in question. Some days after that
the plaintiff called and asked for them. He had orders
to give them up on the plaintiff satisfying a Mr. Dobree,
who held a bill of his over due, and giving up to him
some shares in the Wheal Julia. He said he was sorry
the bill had lain over so lung, and he was quite satisfied
with the bills being in his (witness's) hands. About a
month after he (witness) gave him up the two bills in
question, and another one, in consequence of fresh orders
from defendant. He (witness) knew nothing about the
bills until December, and had never seen any one about
them but the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—The mines spoken of, Wheals Mary
and Julia, were speculations of the defendants—they had
failed, and were now worked at a loss. Never told
plaintiff the bills were mislaid.
The presentation and dishonour of the bills were proved.
The schedule of the plaintiff, in the-Insolvent Court,
could not be put in in consequence of the absence of the
subscribing witness.
The proceedings under the bankruptcy of Hale were
excluded, not having been enrolled.
A number of letters, written by the plaintiff to the de-
fendant were then read, for the purpose of showing that
at the time the plaintiff now alleged the defendant to be
indebted to him in the amount of the bills in question, he
was in much difficulty, and asking for assistance.
The defendant's attorney having, in the progress of'
the cause, obtained the attendance of the subscribing wit-
ness to the schedule of the plaintiff, it was admitted ; no
mention was made of the bill.

Mr. JARVIS replied at very great length.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 1781. 2s. 6d.
This being the last cause on the list the Jury were
discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 17.
HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. MARSDEN, the bankrupt's Solicitor, applied to the
Learned Commissioner to know his final decision with
regard to the bankrupt's last examination. Such con-
fusion prevailed last night at the close of the proceedings,
that he was unwilling to prolong the matter, and he con-
sequently deferred his application until this morning.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said his intention was to
adjourn the case sine die.
Mr. MARSDEN said, although most disreputable facts
had transpired during the course of this very lengthened
investigation, yet lie felt bound to inquire, whether the
bankrupt would be called upon to defray the expenses
of a fresh meeting ?
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said, as he had adjourned
the case, he should say nothing on the subject to which
Mr. Marsden alluded.