The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-21 00:00:00

DEEKS V. STANHOPE.

This appeal occupied the Court the remainder of the day.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Lord LANGDALE was occupied during the early part of the
day in hearing the remainiw; petitions, after which he pro-
ceeded with the short causes part heard. The proceedings
were quite devoid of public interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
DE BEAUVOIR V. DE BEAUVOIR.
This case, which was part-heard yesterday, came before the
Court upon a demurrer put in by the defendant to the
bill filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his bill claimed, as
next of kin of the testator in the cause, the whole of his per-
sonal estate, and the defendant, as heir-at-law, claimed both
the Personalty and realty.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR allowed the demurrer, thereby
declaring his opinion to be that the defendant was entitled to
both the real and personal estate.
THE DUKE OF LEEDS V. LORD AMHERST.

The arguments in this case were commenced, and the
further consideration postponed till to-morrow.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Wronem.)
EAST V. EAST.
This suit was instituted by a ward against the executors
for mal-administration of his estate. On a former hearing a
reference was granted to the Master, who found that large
debts due to the estates had not been accounted for to the
heir on attaining his majority, and the case was brought on
to-day for further hearing on the Master's report.
At the conclusion of the arguments,

The COURT remarked that it sometimes did happen in the
case of two executors, that one undertook to act fur himself,
and his co-executor, and afterwards neglected his duty. The
other executor, in that case, might be free from any moral
guilt, but legally he was considered a party to the neglect of
his co-executor and all its consequences ; a salutary rule,
which it would be well for all who undertook that important
duty to know. The Court could not suppose the gentleman
in the present case to have had a bad motive in anything
which had been done ; but he must be held liable for all the
acts of his co-executor, to whatever extent they affected the
estate of the plaintiff.
Judgment was deferred, that the Court might have oppor
tunity to consult the pleadings and the Master's report.
QU

EEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, Westminster Hall.)
ASSOR V. WALKER.
This case was tried before Mr. Justice Coleridge, at the
last assizes on the Oxford circuit. The Learned Counsel ap-
plied for a rule for a new trial upon the grounds of want of
evidence and misdirection. The facts of the case appeared
to be these, as stated by counsel. The plaintiff
sold to defendant ten shares in the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, at
4/. per share, and defendant refused to accept.
The pleas put in were the general issue, and also that the
plaintiff was not ready and willing to transfer, and a denial of
notice. It appeared that a person named Bar and plaintiff
carried on the business of sharebrpkers at Leeds, where
defendant also carried on business as a tradesman. The evi-
dence was, that defendant instructed Bar to buy ten shares
for, him on the 16th of October. On the saike day Bar had
received authority from a person named Hay, 4.0 buy twenty
shires in the same company. Bar purchased twenty shares
from some other person, and ten from the plaintiff;
but Bar never told defendant that he had purchased
shares from any other person. The contract proposed to be
a sale from Bar to defendant. Plaintiff, after the expiration
of -six weeks after the contract, applied for the name of the
principal, in order to know to whom to deliver the shares,
upon which Bar gave the names of Hay and defendant, and
p4intiff applied to both, but they refused to have any-
thing to do with them. The Learned Counsel contended
thit there was no evidence of a specific application of the
•ontrsict.
The COURT was of a different opinion, and refused the rule.
DAY v. SAARPE.
This was another case, arising out of rail aay transactions.
Mr. BAINEs, as Counsel, said it was tried before Mr. Justice
Coleridge at York, when there was a verdict for plaintiff.
Counsel now applied for a rule for a new trial, on the ground
that plaintiff had been a partner in the concern, and as such
could not sue. Plaintiff brought his action for work and
labour gone in the capacity of secretary to the
East Riding Junction line, a scheme which, like many
others, had been called into existence, but since
vanished from the scene. On the Ist of October a prospectus
appeared with the name of plaintiff as one of the Provisional
Committee, and on the 10th of the same month another pro-
spectus appeared with the name of defendant also as a com-
mittee-man. On the 16th of October, when it became ne-
emery to get a certificate of provisional registration, and
plaintiff and defendant signed a document which was neces-
sary to procure that certificate, and plaintiff also signed a
certificate for a solicitor, and on the 15th of October
the plaintiff's name appeared in the prospectus as the
secretary to the Company, and his name struck
out of the list of provisional committee men. The scheme
was put an and to in November, and the plaintiff then
brought his action for his services as secretary up to that
time, and got a verdict. The Learned Counsel submitted
that the action could not be maintained, inasmuch as that
plaintiff had been a quasi partner in the Company.
The Learned JUDGE, who tried the case, stated that it
appeared in evidence, that at a meeting, on the 13th De-
cember, plaintiff put in his claim as secretary, and, at the
suggestion of the directors, consented to reduce it to 451.
Lord DENMAN said it appeared that the other parties in
the cause agreed to the withdrawal of the plaintiff as one of
them, and to make him secretary; and the defendant was
One of the parties so consenting.
The other Bench Judges seemed to be of the same opinion
Rule refused.

LLOYD V. HARRISON.
This was also a railway case. It was tried before Mr.
Justice Coleridge, and a verdict had for defendant. Mr.
Sergeant Shea moved for a rule for a new trial upon the
grounds of misdirection and against the evidence. It ap-
peared that the plaintiff and defendant were both attorneys,
and defendant was one of the provisional committee, and the
Plaintiff was secretary, to a scheme called the London Union
ailway—a scheme which proposed to units the London and
Birmingham and the Great Western, by means of the river,
Which appeared to be a useful and feasible scheme ;
but when the London and Birmingham and the
Great Western Companies saw the announcement of it
they took it up, and the other company then fell to the
..'round. It appeared that when plaintiff became secretary,
e gave a guarantee to all the directors, except the defendant,
tthe hat he would advance money, and transact the business of
company without making any charge.
The COURT were of opinion that the jury had had evidence
that the money was not paid to the credit of Harrison, and
refused the rule.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Mr(.Scitotßiugsin Banco before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
applied, the
on part, of a person named De-
Phlige, at TrE esent a prisoner in i erk Castle, for a writ of
certiorari to bring up the proceedings taken before the county
coroner, and also fbr a rule to show case why the prisoner
should not be admitted to bail. The Learned Counsel stated
that lie moved for the rule tor show
presentactatuh transaction. Fromse on the affidavits of
e
several persons who were p
their statements it appeared that the prisoner was in the
employ of a person named Rooke, a carrier, near Leeds. On
the 2d of April last the prisoner, who
as
at the
his mas-
ter's horse and cart, stopped with thepmriaohthetrehmteo
drink Royal
oi Oak.
, and
The landlord of that place invited the
after.thev had both taken enough to make
intoxicated, they went out, and some scuffle
prisoner
eetuwgehelyn
them; they returned to the house, and the
asked the deceased to come out and fight. The deceaseadgc did
So, and on coming out a scuffle commenced, in the course of
Which he received a blow which knocked him down, upon
the stones. He was taken up, and died in a few hours after-
Wards. The affidavits all agreed that there did not appear
to be any malicious intention on the part of the prisoner, but
that the whole was a drunken scuffle.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—The case is one of manslaughter.
Mr. CORRIE—Yes, my Lord; but the case is of such a na-
ture that I am induced to hope this application will not be
=Mused.

Therule for a certiorari was then made absolute, and a
rule nisi to show cause granted.

CLARKE V. RTJOILES.

Mr. MACAULAY moved fora rule to show cause why the
Verdict in this case should not be set aside and a new trial
granted, on the groand of the rejection of material evidence,
the misdirection of the Under-Sheriff, and a verdict being
returned contrary to evidence. This cause had been tried
before the Under-Sheriff of Nottingham. The plaintiff, Mr.
Clarke, was a surveyor, one of that class who were frequently
employed by persons superior to themselves in the profession.
The plaintiff was employed as a surveyor on the Sheffield,
Nottingham, and London Direct Railway, and the defendant
Was a provisional director on that line. The work which had
formed the subject of dispute in this case had been performed
between the 22d and 30th of November. The case for the
Plaintiff had been opened by his Learned Friend Mr. Miller,
And he had stated that the engineer of the company, a gen-
tleman named Breere, had been directed to make some sur-
MI within a given time, and had employed the plaintiff.
Vlreonsequence of some quarrel which had arisen between
Breere and the company he left, without having paid
fir. Clarke. Mr. Cann, the agent of the company, had then
ilaid to the plaintiff that'
at. he should continue to work, and
that he would not only see that he was paid for
the future, but that all his arrears should be
Paid up. His Learned Friend then called two
Witnesses, each of whom was about to bring an action
aCainst Mr. Hughes. They both stated that they had been
employed by Mr. Breere, They
with the plaintiff, but that
they afterwards worked under the direction of Mr. Cann, the
tompany's agent. Another witness
had also deposed that
kr. Cann had stated to the plainyttft,haand to himself, that
, on
the
not done justice to
Breere had received 1,9004 and
part of the com-
pany, to see the witnesses. The rest of the had taken place
the case consisted of
o
an account given of some proceedings which
hi February, at the board of directors, in
him
Proved that the plaintiff, with other surveyNiro,
a
it
was o hearing
Meer gate and seen Alderman H. Hughes
that they had not been paid, had said that,
most
painful thing, but that the company were about to wind up
its affairs, for the deposits had not been paid. He would,
however, see them paid on the earliest opportunity.
The case, on the part of the defendant, was that it was an
ordinary case, in which the surveyor had been employed by
an engineer to take part in the fulfilment of a' contract for
which he himself was liable, It was like the ordinary case,
where a man had contracted to build a house, and had -eiiildoyed workmen and an agent. If the agent interfered with
the workmen to expedite them in their work, he was not
liable to he regarded as the person ou whom the fulfilment of
the contract devolved. The first witness for the plaintiff
had stated that the plaintiff had been employed by Breere,
and that Mr. Cann was obliged to guarantee that the money
due by Breere should be paid up. On the part of the de-
totidents, Mr. Breere was asked whether he had contracted
with the company for a fixed sum? And that question was
objected to, and not allowed to be answered. Breere had
t tated in his evidence that be was engaged to perform the
titirveYs in a given time, that he had gone to London to
engagell, tlw plaintiff, whom he had before employed in a si-
:lar manner. lie had received no instructions from the
`,,,tlN?any to employ him, and, in fact, employed him entirely
his own account.
Mr. Justice C •
OLERIDGE said that the defendants had pro-
-7.0
o,_ t Pay the money due by Mr. Brew) at the interview
4114 Ulm place in idtpriatv.