The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 13.

BARRY AND ANOTHER V. NESHADI AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiffs in this case were paper-makers, and the
defendants were alleged to be the proprietors of the
Newcastle Advertiser. The action was brought to re-
cover for paper supplied to the defendants. Louden, one
of the defendants, had suffered judgment to go by de-
fault. Nesham had originally been proprietor of
the paper, but had, as he alleged, sold it to
other parties, suffering part of the purchase
money to remain on mortgage. The plaintiffs,
on the other hand, contended that he was a partner. The
question entirely turned on the construction to be put
on the wording of the agreement between the parties at
the time Nesham ceased to be sole proprietor of the
paper. The case came on for argument in demurrer.
Mr. Sergeant Channel having been heard for plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd for defendant,
The COURT gave judgment. The only real question
they had to consider was, whether the defendants, at
the time the goods were supplied, were joint partners
in the newspaper in question. The settlement of this
point turned entirely on the construction of the agree
ment, and looking to its purpose, intention, and the object
to be realised, it appeared clear to them that it was a part-
nership extending over a period of seven years, unless
otherwise dissolved under the conditions named in the
document. Any one who stipulated for a portion of the
profits of a' concern must be considered liable to any
loss arising from the transactions necessary, for the carry-
ing on of the undertaking. A contract stipulating for a
portion of the profits clearly created a liability for any
loss. Judgment must, therefore, be given for the plaintiffs,

GIBBI v. FLIGHT AND OTHERS.-THE PARISH OF

WALBROOK.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on behalf of the defendants
in this case, was desirous of knowing whether judgment.
would be given on an early day. Considering the
painful position in which the parish of Walbrook was
placed, he trusted as little delay as possible would take
place. _

- Lord Chief Justice WlLDE—Judgment I expect wil
be given in the couse of the present term.

PARRAT V. BERKELEY.-THE BIRMINGHAM AND
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE RAILWAY.
This was an action brought by Mr. Parrett, the ad-
vertising agent, to recover from the Hon. F. H. Berke-
ley, M.P., the sum of 200 L, for advertising the prospec-
tus of the Birmingham and Buckinghamshire Railway,
of which it was alleged defendant was a provisional
director. The plaintiff, not being in a position to_prove
that the prospectus in which the name of the defendant
:appeared had been issued by the officers of the company,
was nonsuited.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 13.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)

IN RE THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION TO
LEAMINGTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD gave his
decision as to the alleged act of bankruptcy by the dis-
solution of the company by notice in the Gazette.
The argument used by Mr. Pocock, the solicitor, to
the fiat, was, that the dissolution was an act of bank-
ruptcy against the creditors, who could proceed against
the company, although the shareholders had not de.
Oared that the dissolution should be deemed an act of
bankruptcy, which they were entitled to do in order to
have the affairs wound up.
The Learned COMMISSIONER very briefly gave his de-
cision, said that he had consulted with his brother
Commissioners, and they agreed with him in opinion,
and he had come to the decision not to adjudicate in the
case.

The only remedy for the creditors appears to be to
appeal to the Court of Review, and to endeavour to get
an order of Court.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Nov. 13.
(Before Mr. Secondary JANES.)
SEWELL 0. MARTINDALE.
This was an action to recover the sum of 161. on a
bill of exchange. The defendant had pleaded that she
did not accept, but a judge's order had been obtained,
calling upon her to admit the handwriting, in order to
save the expense of calling witnesses in cases where the
defence was vexatious.
The jury, accordingly, gave a verdict for the amount
claimed.

EON V. TAMER.
This was an action to recover the sum of 381., the
balance on an account for grocery goods sold to the de-
fendant. The plaintiff is a wholesale grocer in the Bo-
rough, and the defendant had been a grocer in the
Wandsworth-road.
The Learned SECONDARY held that the showing the
account in the ledger to a customer, if he made no ob‘
jection at the time, was sufficient evidence Id rielivpry.
In this case the defendant had distinctly admitted 30/.
to be due, by offering a bill for that amount.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.