The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jay 2.

The Court did not sit to-day, the Judges being occupied
in the further hearing of Sheehy v. Lord Muskerry, in the
House of Lords.

(Sittings at :Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD CIRIEF
BanoN and Common Juries.)
*DIMOND/ D. ROBSON.

The plaintiff is a silversmith and jeweller, residing at
Southampton-row, Russell square ; the defendant keeps
the Swan Inn, at Kensington. Last New Year's day,
the plaintiff went with sonic ladies of his family to spond the
afternoon with a friend at Kensington. He drove down in
a phaeton, drawn by a single horse, which he put up at the
Swan. Hei was told by the ostler that the house was usually
closed between eleven and twelve ; but he said, "Never
mind; I'll make it all right with vou." The cloaks of the
ladies were put into the bar, and' the horse was put into a
sort of shed, which was used as a stable. The plaintiff left
his friend's house about one in the morning of the 2d of
January, and preceded his family to the Swan, to make pre-
paration for their return to London. He knocked repeatedly,
but for some time got no answer. At length the ostler was
aroused, he struck a light, and having inquired what the
plaintiff wanted, he told him that he had sat up until his
master forced him to go to bed ; that the house was shut up for
the night ; and that neither his horse nor his cloaks could be
procured till the following morning. The plaintiff told him
that would not do; that he he had some ladies waiting with
him ; and that he should get to town. After some further
parley, and after having at length by repeated knocking and
kicking forced open the gate, the plaintiff was surrounded by
a mob, was struck, and filially given into the custody of the
police by the defendant. He was carried to the station-
house, but the inspector on hearing the circumstance refused
to entertain the charge. He was subsequently obliged to
procure cabs at great inconvenience, and thus got with his
family to town. The next morning he went to Kensington
with his brother, and paid the defendant 3s. for the keep of
the horse. It was proved that the shed was in a very
wretched state, covered with dung, and open at the roof.
The horse got ill, and was obliged to be put under the care of
a veterinary surgeon. These were the main features of the
case, which was conducted on the part of the plaintiff by Mr.
Martin, Mr. E James, and Mr. Prentice; and for the de-
fendant by Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Bovill.
It was contended on the part of the defendant that he was
not bound to keep his house open to an unseasonable and
unusual hour for the convenience of the plaintiff, and that
the private agreement made between the latter and the
ostler—viz., to keep the horse ready harnessed and to de-
liver him at one o'clock, was not binding on the innkeeper
his master.

The Loan CHIEF Baltox told the jury that he would not
leave them any question to decide on about which a legal
difficulty might afterwards be raised, but that he would take
their opinion on a question of fact. He was of *pin on that
it was settled law that an innkeeper was bound to receive a
guest or traveller in his house at any hour that was not per-
fectly unreasonable, and it was no defence that he was a Sun-
day traveller, or that the innkeeper was gone to bed. An
innkeeper was bound to submit to the inconveniences of his
calling; they might be great or they might be trivial, but
the calling was his own choice. The law could never and
did never contemplate that a traveller travelling alone at
midnight over the moors of Yorkshire, for instance, and who
sought admission into a public inn, was to be told " You
ca n't get in ; we are all in bed, and you must wait till five
o'clock in the morning." It was absurd to suppose that the
law would sanction such an act as that; and he told
the jury that the law did not sanction it. But even
supposing that such was the law, he would put it to the
jury whether it was not a hard, unfeeling act for the
defendant to say to this plaintiff, "You can't get your
cloaks or shawls; they are shut up in the bar; you can't
get your horse; he is shut up in my stable; you may walk
to town, or you may remain in the open air all night, just as
you please, and you shall have them at five o'clock in the
morning." Suppose he had the strictest right to do this,
ought he to have done it? and did the jury conceive that
such a proceeding ought not to meet with punishment? The
ostler was the agent of his master, and he was bound by his
agreement; and if any inconvenience occurred to the master
by such agreement, the ostler might be dismissed.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.
Friday, July 3.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
No cese worthy of notice occupied the attention of this
Court to-day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 3'
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANI.)
The clerk of the Sheriff' Court for the City of London
handed in a document issued from that Court on a judgment,
and applied under the Small Debts Act fur an order of the
Commissioner to enforce that judgment.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the document did not
set forth the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Clerk said that there could be no doubt of the juris-
diction of the Judge of the Sheriffs' Court to extend all over
the City of. London.
The -Learned Commf.sstoxEn—No doubt he knows his own
jurisdiction, but lam not bound or expected to know it. If
I stirred in the matter, and the Court below had no jurisdic-
tion, I should be laying myself open to an action.
The Clerk said that it was shown in the record that the de-
fendant resided within the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs' Court.
The CommssioNEß—That is a mere suggestion on the re-
cord, which may, or may not, be true—suggestions on re-
cords are generally false. In the Exchequer, it was formerly
set out that the debtor was indebted to our Sovereign Lord
the King, which was not a fact; suggestions, therefore,
went for nothing.
The Clerk said that if his Honour would suggest what
would be satisfactory evidence of the jurisdiction it should
be adduced.

The Learned CO3MISSIOI4IER would not trouble himself to
suggest what was required. When papers were put before
him he would say whether he would act on them or not.
He would not in this case.

SECONDARIES' COURT, July 3.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
ERWOOD V. YOUNG.

This was an action to recover the sum of 71. 103., for a
quarter's rent of apartments in Brownlow-street, Holborn.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted. On the
part of the plaintiff evidence was adduced that the defendant
had occupied the apartments for eighteen months up to
Lady-day last, and the rent was claimed for the last quarter.
Fur the defendant, however, six receipts were put in, cover-
ing the whole of the peria, but the latter had been altered,
and it was contended was not in the writing of the plaintiff,
but the evidence slightly went in the affirmative. Another
paper was put in, being an unstamped receipt for 51., which
was rejected as evidence.
The Learned SECONDARY said it appeared to him that the
question was a very simple one, and that was—whether the
receipt was in the band-writing of the plaintiff ? As all the
receipts had been produced, it could only allude to the quar-
ter in dispute; the paper for the 51. might probably have been
for a sum paid on account, and that on the payment of the
balance, the receipt, which was a stamped duplicate of the
other, might have been altered.
The jury almost immediately gave a verdict for defendant.
The SECONDARY said that there could be very little doubt
in the matter.
This was the only case.

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.
Guildford, July 3.
(Before G. T. NICHOLSON, Esq., Chairman, the Earl of
LOVELACE, Lord LovAIN, G. BEST, Esq.. &c., &e.)
THE JOINT STOCK COMPANY REGISTRATION ACT.--
IMPORTANT DECISION. —SA MUEL HENRY POWELL,
APPELLANT, V. ♦ CONVICTION BY THE HON. MR.

NORTON.
This was an appeal against a decision of Mr. Norton
at the Lambeth Police Court, convicting the appellant
in the sum of 201. for neglecting to register a railway
speculation, of which he had been the promoter.
Mr. W. Payne appeared in support of the conviction.
Mr. Wallenger and Mr. Bagley were for the appellant.
Mr. PAYNE havii.g taken some objections to the notice
of appeal, which were overruled by the Court,
Mr. WALLENCER addressed the bench on behalf of
the appellant. He said that this was an appeal against
a conviction under the Act of the 7th and Bth Victoria,
commonly known as the Joint-stock Company Registra-
tion Act. The appellant was alleged to have been the
promoter of a railway undertaking called the Grand
Junction, Great Western and South Western Junction
Railway Company, and a penalty of 201. had been
inflicted upon him for not having registered the com-
pany in accordance with the provisions of the above
Act of Parliament. He should contend that such an
association did not come within the scope and meaning
of this Act of Parliament, and he referred the Court to
the second clause in the Act, which required that cer-
tain undertakings should be registered, but which ex-
pressly excepted all undertakings from the operation
of the Act, where they could not be carried into effect
without obtaining the sanction of an Act of Parliament.
Now, as it was perfectly clear that the undertaking in
question could not be carried into effect without an Act
of Parliament, he submitted that the clause imposing
the penalty could not apply to the case, and that, there-
fore, the conviction must be quashed. The Learned
Council then cited the decision given by Lord Denman
in a recent case of Lorton v. Hickman which, he said,
entirely confirmed the view of the Act he beg►ged to
suggest to the Bench, and he therefore called upon the
magistrates to quash the conviction.
Mr. BAGLEY, on the same side, said it appeared to
him the point was so clear, that he would not trouble
the Court further than to say that in another decision
in the Court of Exchequer, la the case of Smith v.
Young, the very same principle had been sanctioned by
the Court.

Mr. PA NE said these were cases in which the legality
of the sale of scrip was the question at issue, and they
did not apply to this case.
Mr. WALLENGER said the point involved in these cases
was, whether railways came within the scope of the
Joint-stock Company Registration Act, which was the
question now at issue.

- Mr. PAYNE, on behalf of the respondent, submitted
that the Act of Parliament in question was clearly in-
tended to apply to railways as well as to every other
description of joint-stock undertaking. lie cited the
4th section of the Act in question, and said, that after
enumerating various descriptions of w)rks, it concluded
by the words, " whether for executing any such work as
aforesaid under the authority of the Act of Parliament,
or for any other purpose, the same should be registered
in accordance with the provisions of the Act." Ile re-
minded the Court that it was exceedingly important for
the public to know who were the originators and pro-
moters of those schemes, and in confirmation of his
opinion that they came within the scope of the Act of
Patliament, he said he was in a condition to prove that
almost up to that very day it had been the practice to
register all such undertakings.
Mr. WALLENGER admitted that this might have been
done, but that did not alter the case. The question was
a very nice one, and until the decision to which he had
referred there might have been some doubt upon the
point, which was now quite settled.
The COURT, after a short consultation, quashed the
conviction.

Mr. WALLENQER applied for full costs.
The COURT, however, said they did not think it Wa3
a case in which they could allow more than the usual
amount of forty shillings.

A ROBIN'S NEST IN AN ORGAN.—On Sunday last,
during divine service in St. Michael's Church, in this town,
the organist found some obstruction in the organ that pre-
vented him playing, and on searching for the cause after the
congregation were dismissed, discovered, to his no small as-
tonishment, a robin's nest, with three young ones in it. They
were not disturbed in their singular retreat, but were left to
take their flight, which they will be bible to do in a few
CtS ti va tit e.