The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF DYCE SOMBRP.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 3.
THE MARQUIS OP HERTFORD V. LORD LOWTHER.

VICE. CHANCERY COURT, ../Vov. 3.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)

CAMPBELL V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a bill filed against the Brighton Railway
Company to test the question whether the holders of
notes, issued on the loan of 300,0001., can claim the
conversion of their notes into shares, if due notice be
given of this intention previous to the year 1847. It
appears that the company in 1842 resolved to raise a
loan of 300,0001., and issued 401. loan notes for five
years at five per cent., and on the back of the note was
an endorsement which gave the acceptor the option of
converting his notes into quarter shares of 10/., upon
due notice being given before the 15th February, 1845.
The defendants contend that these stipulations were
clearly embodied in the advertisement for the loan,
the tender, and the endorsement on the loan
note, and that while the option to convert was
given, it was yet limited in time to February, 1845, and
that the holders who have allowed this period to pass
have thereby lost their right to shares in the company.
Mr. Romilly, Q.C., Mr. Rae, and Mr. Adams, were
heard this morning for the defendants.
Mr. BETHELL (with whom was Mr. Goldschmid) re-
plied for the plaintiff; contending on his part, that all
that could be viewed by the Court as a contract, was
that stipulation which appeared on the face of the loan
note.

The arguments having been finished, judgment was
deferred.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WOOD V. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff is a cab owner, and the defendants linen
drapers, carrying on business in Oxford-street. The
action, which was tried in the last Trinity term before
Lord Denman, was brought to recover damages for in-
juries inflicted on a cab belonging to the plaintiff by a cart
driven by the servant of the defendant. The jury gave a
verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared from the evidence ad-
duced at the trial that the cab was on a stand, and that the
cart, which was driven by a man named-Phillips, came
in collision with it, causing the injuries for which com-
pensation was sought. It came out, however, that the
cart was only hired by the defendant from a person
named Gamp, who employed his own driver, but on
the day in question Phillips drove it, in the
unavoidable absence of the driver; before doing so, pri-
soner Gamp cautioned him, that if he did so it would
be at his own risk. The case had been twice tried, each
time a verdict having bren returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. KNOWLES to-day applied for a new trial, and
contended that the verdict was fallacious, inasmuch as
the cart was not driven by Phillips on the authority of
the defendants.

Lord DENMAN turned to his notes, and held that the
evidence proved that on the day in question the man
Phillips was acting as the servant of the defendants, as
he had received directions from their foreman, named
Collins, to drive the cart to a certain place. Looking at
the whole of the evidence, he considered the verdict
warranted by the evidence, and refused the application.

WESTON v. POTTER.
This case was tried at the last summer assizes at Ips-
wich, before the late Mr. Justice Williams, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Mr. O'MALLEY moved for a new trial on the ground
of misdirection. It appeared that in May, 1845, the
plaintiff purchased a horse from the defendant for 281.
The horse was ultimately attacked with lameness, which
was supposed to result from a " splint" in the fore, leg
of the horse, which existed at the time of the purchase.
The defendant had given a written warranty to the
plaintiff as to the soundness of the horse. The question,
therefore, at the trial was, whether there was a breach
of warranty or not. It was shown that the plaintiff had
examined the horse before he made the purchase. One
of the witnesses of the plaintiff said that the horse had
no splint at the time, whilst all the others said that :it
was distinctly visible in the fore leg. The Learned
Judge thus put the case to the jury. If the horse had a
splint at the time of the contract, and afterwards produced
his lameness, then the warranty was incorrect and the
contract void; whereas, he (Mr. O'Malley) contended
that the "splint" turned into lameness in consequence of
the improper treatment of the purchaser, and that the
" splint" was well known at the time of the contract, and
was, therefore, excluded from the terms of the warranty.
Lord DENMAN took time to consider the application,
and in order that he might have an opportunity of con-
sulting the late Mr. Justice Williams's notes.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
PICKFORD AND OTHERS V. LACON.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
31. 45., the sum which the defendant had contracted to
pay in consideration of three seats being reserved for him
in the plaintiff's coach from Yarmouth to London.
Mr. Watson, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Archbold)
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Montague Smith conducted the defence.
Mr. WATSON stated the case briefly. The plaintiff
was a clerk in the Customs at Newhaven, and in June,
1845, went to Norwich with his wife and servant. On
the 16th of June in that year he sent to 'engage three
places in the plaintiff's coach to London for the following
day. They entered their places, but on the coach reach-
ing Yoxford he got out, saying that the coach was over-
loaded, and proceeded with his wife in a post-
chaise to London. On the coach arriving at
London, application was made to Mr. Lacon for the
money for the fare, but he refused to pay it. He stated
that the coach was overloaded, but he was the only per-
son who seemed to entertain such un opinion, for his
servant proceeded to London without expressing any
desire to leave. His clients had been anxious to try the
present case as cheaply as possible, and therefore would
have brought it on before the Under-Sheriff ; but the
Learned Judge was of opinion that the nature of the case
rendered it desirable that it should be brought forward
in one of the higher Courts.
Mr. C. J. Powell proved the license of the coach,
which contained the names of the proprietors.
Mr. Cooke stated that, in 1845, he was book-keeper
at the office at Yarmouth. Has seen all the plaintiffs
there, and he has transacted business with them as pro-
prietors. On the 16th of June in that year the man-
servant of the defendant came and took three places—
one inside and two out. Directions were given that the
passengers were to be taken up at Mr. Lacon's, on the
quay. A pound was paid down. There were twelve
people outside the coach.

Mr. MiNamara, a railway agent, proved that he was
on the coach on the 17th of June. He got up at Lowes7

Upon this case being called on, which came before
the Court upon the petition of Mr. Dyce Sombre, pray-
ing the supersedeas of the commission of lunacy that
had been issued against him,
Mr. ROLT stated that he bad been requested by Mr.
Bothell, who was engaged in the Vice-Chancellor of
England's Court, to request that it might stand over till
to-morrow morning.
. The LORD CHANCELLOR could not allow the case to
stand over to the prejudice of the other business of the
Court. He wished to know whether any proposition
had been made, or was likely to be made, on the subject
of the petition, or any arrangement come to among the
parties ?

Mr. BOLT was not aware of any proposition for an
arrangement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it most desirable
that some attempt should be made to come to some
arrangement, as he thought it must be evident, from the
report of the physicians, what course the Court would
think it right to take unless some arrangement was come
to. He thought the best course would be to let the case
stand over for a few days, to see if counsel on both sides
would not anticipate what the Court would do by coming
to some arrangement.
Mr. CALVERT was with Mr. Bethel], and was anxious
to hear what suggestion the counsel on the other side
would make.

Mr. RoLT said that of course, if the case stood over,
everything must remain in statu quo, and no further
affidavits must be filed.

The LORD CHA.NCELLOR—CertainIy. It is at my
suggestion that the case stands over. I think the case
had better stand over for a week to see if some arrange-
ment cannot be come to.

Mr. BOLT hoped his Lordship would appoint a par-
ticular day for hearing the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR_. Let it stand for this day
week.

The COURT then proceeded to hear bankrupt petitions,
but no case of any interest came before the Court previous
to its rising.

Mr. TURNER presented a petition from the Countess
Zichy, praying the payment of arrears of certain life
policies to which she laid claim.

- From the statement of the Learned Counsel it ap-
peared that the Union Company of Assurance at Paris
had agreed to pay the late Marquis of Hertford an an-
nuity of 22,750 francs, in half-yearly payments of 11,375
francs. In the codicil to the will of the Marquis of Hertford
there appeared the following, viz. :—" There is a green
box at Milan, with my name, containing letters from
Naples, &c., which I leave, in case of my death, to
Charlotte Stracklan, and desire that it may be given to
her unopened." The codicil also bequeathed, after pay-
ing certain bequests, &c., all the goods, chattels,
&c., of which the noble testator was pos-
sessed, to Charlotte Leopoldina, Countess de Zichy.
On the 29th of March, 1843, the Master made his report
on the administration suit of Hertford and Lowther, and
found that the green box in question contained, among
other things, a life annuity bond, dated Milan,, April 1,
1837. On the 4th of April an order of nisi
was obtained for the purpose of confirming this
report. Exceptions were then taken to certain
Polish and Austrian bonds contained in the
box, which exceptions were allowed. Several other legal
steps were then had recourse to; and the object of the
present petition was to ascertain whether the Countess
was entitled to the amount cf the arrears due on the
French policy at the testator's decease, as well as the
arrear due on the Milan policy.
After hearing the argutne,its on both sides in extenso,
Lord LANGDALE went through the case in detail, and
having expressed his opinion as to the impropriety of
bringing forward the case at all, dismissed the petition
with costs.