The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-07 00:00:00

RIGBY V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

The Lord Chancellor, after disposing of this case,
which came before his Lordship to be spoke to on the
minutes, proceeded with the further arguments in the
part heard case of " Chuck v. Cremer," the facts of which
we have already given in detail. The case occupied his
Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
This being the Second Seal after Michaelmas Term,
the Court proceeded to hear motions, none of which call
for a particuiar notice.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
WINTER V. WINTER.
The arguments of this part-heard case were concluded
this morning.
His HONOUR reserved his judgment.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
ROBINSON V. ASTEN.
This was a motion for the issue of an attachment
against the defendants, John and Robert Asten, of Wol-
verhampton, for a non-compliance with an order of the
Court of the 3d of last November. It appeared that the
defendants were ordered to execute a deed of partner-
ship with the plaintiff within four days from the date of
the order, but that the deed remained still unexecuted.
His HONOUR considered that this was a matter which
could have been arranged at the office, and refused to
grant the order.
After hearing some uninteresting motions, the Court
rose shortly alter eleven o'clock.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

PAYN V. ?RITCHARD.

This was an action in which the plaintiff; a railway
surveyor, sought to recover the sum of 461., the balance
alleged to be due to him for work and services rendered
as a leveller upon the London and Birmingham Exten-
sion Railway, and the Worcester and Warwick Railway,
for Mr. Pritchard, the engineer to the above lines.
Mr. M. Chambers, with whom was Mr. Hayes, ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; the Attorney-General, Mr.
Ashton, and Mr. Humfrey for the defendant.
. . .

From the evidence in support of the case of the plain-
tiff, it appeared that he was engaged by Mr. Bushell, the.
managing clerk of the defendant, as a leveller, in the
commencement of October, at the rate of one guinea per
day ; subsequently, as the wages of that class of persons
rose in amount, it was increased to one guinea and a halt
per day. The plaintiff now claimed the sum of 461, as
a balance of the sum of 1081. due to him from the 10th
of October to the 2d of December, 1845, at the rate of
three guineas per day. It was the custom of all the
persons employed by the defendant to seed every week
to Landon " a time bill," showing how they had been
engaged, and also what other necessary expenses had
been incurred; and it was from these " time bills" in the
office of the defendant that the present claim wa.,
made out.

Mr. H UMFREY, in his address to the jury, contended
that the defendant was not liable to pay the present
large amount. Plaintiff was engaged at the rate of one
guinea per day, which was afterwards increased at the
express wish of the defendant to a larger sum, and al-
though the time bills forwarded to London by the plain-

tiff Contained charges at the rate of three guineas per
day, still it was not until the month of Decem-
ber last that the defendant was made acquainted
with the charges. He thought that at least the
plaintiff should give some evidence that the work
was actually done for which he made his charge.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to say that the plaintiff
had himself admitted that he had received the sum of
701. for his services from the 10th of November to the
2d of December, and that a further sum of 71. 6s. was
paid into Court, and contended that this was ample re-
muneration for the services of a person who had entered
into an agreement at the rate of one guinea and a halt
per day.
A number of witnesses were then called on the part
of the defence.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up to the jury,
said, that with reference to the disputes as to what
portion of the line the work was done upon, he thought
the proper course would have been for the defendant to
take out a summons before the judge at chambers for
the particulars of demand, the plaintiff wishing to know
upon what portion of the line such or such work was done.
Suck a demand would always be granted by the judge,
upon a proper affidavit, stating that the plaintiff had
reason to believe that the work in question was not done.
The questions for the jury to consider were, first, by
whom tht plaintiff was employed, then whether the work
in question was really done, and if done, were the
charges for such work correctly made, and if so, what
was the balance now due to the plaintiff.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the full amount, 461. 16s.
His LORDSHIP granted immediate execution.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied all the morning with a pedi-
gree case, which was adjourned from Saturday.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
IN RE DRYDEN.

NOVEL APPLICATION.,-In this case, which vas an
old fiat, the solicitor to the assignees applied to the
Learned Commissioner to annul a dividend previously
declared, and grant another meeting, on the ground that
there was an error in the calculation, whereby one por-
tion of the creditors were excluded from partaking in the
dividend.
The clerk to the official assignee said the error arose
in consequence of the subsequent meeting for proof of
debts not being taken into consideration, the consequence
was, that the first creditors would receive two dividends
and the others none at all.
The Registrar said the dividend was declared so far
back as the 18th October, 1845.
The solicitor said it had not been advertised, and he
conceived that the fund might be brought back from the
dividend and placed to the general account. He was a
creditor himself, and also had a bill of costs.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he could not un-
derstand why there had been so much delay, nor could
he now withdraw the fund.
The clerk to the official assignee said, that the solicitor
to the assignees was aware, the day after the dividend
was directed that there was an error, and refused to
sign the dividend paper, but he had not since taken any
steps on the part of the assignee, or for himself, to have
it set right till now.
The Solicitor had been a great many times and never
incredible.ilonour. It was
hadH iaan
HONOURopportuni
saidt opportunity oft
hspeakingwas
utiot
ehis
clear that he was not entitled to costs which had not
been submitted to audit at the audit meeting. He could
mn ootr
ab
nridnugmt h
be e
ing moneypu
tb a cokn, butth e wporuolede
eidni
nag r opal
leerwmae-
n
amendment, so that the new creitrs might receive the
first dividend which would exhaud
stthe assets.

----
SURREYAY.)
ThesesessionSs ESSItiN
o S
commencedchairman, and a full bench of magistrates.
to-day r
before SMr D.
of a violent character, committed by Thomas
The first case taken was an indictment forFoauumaesssaaunldt
Henry Foulkes, his brother, omnibus proprietors, on W.
H. Balls, the keeper of a green yard at Kennington-
cross. It appeared that the former of the two prisoners,
who had surrendered in discharge of their bail, had ap-
plied to the Insolvent Court for relief, and
one of his omnibuses had been, as part of his
property, delivered to Rutland, a sheriff's officer,
for custody, and by him confided to the
care of the prosecutor. The application of Thomas
Foulkes failed in consequence of his having described
himself as out of trade, whereas at the hearing the con-
trary was shown. This invalidated the petition, and it
was shown by one of the messengers of the Court of
Chancery, in the employment of Mr. Graham, the official
assignee, that in such a case the property that had been
seized immediately becomes reinvested in the insolvent,
and if any of it has been sold, the proceeds are handed
over to him. With this impression Foulkes and his
brother went to Ball's yard to take away his omnibus, on
the 2:.:4 of July last. Ball had, however, received a notice
not to give up the property, as Foulkes had failed to pay
the fees of the Court. Notwithstanding this circum-
stance, the two Foulkeses proceeded to take away by
force the omnibus and the two horses which drew it.
While getting the horses out, the son of the prosecutor
took sway the pole of the carriage, but they persevered,
and as Henry Foulkes was driving the omnibus out of
the yard, they were met by Ball, who, with his
utmost strength, opposed their progress, and
was violently struck over the hands, head, and face.
The cries of the prosecutor ultimately brought the police
to his assistance, and all went together to the station,
where they were referred to the magistrates, and this
indictment was ultimately preferred.
Mr. CLIARNOCK, who was retained for the prisoners,
in addressing the jury, stated that the petition of
Thomas Foulkes to the Court of Insolvency had been
filed two years before this circumstance occurred.
During the interval which had elapsed he bad
succeeded in making arrangements with several
of his creditors, and he ceased to be a petitioner
at all. He had, therefore, agreed to let the omnibus
and horses to Ball, at a rent of 41. 10s. per week, with a
proviso that all should be returned to him safe and in
good condition, and that, in the event of the duty getting
into arrear, or of the horses or the carriage being in-
jured, he should have a right to take them away at any
time from the possession of the prosecutor. The rent
had got three weeks behind hand ; there was a sum of
231. owing for duty, and one of the horses had died.
Seeing this property thus injured, Foulkes and his
brother had gone to Ball's yard to take it. and in the en
deavour to do so the assault was made, which the
Learned Counsel asserted was justified to the very ut-
most, and put in the agreement between Foulkes and
Ball, and signed by both of them. With respect to the
allegation that the property was rightly detained under
the Court of Bankruptcy, he would contend that, in the
first place, no sufficient proof had been given that such
was the cass. The property had been seized, not in the
night, but in the light of day, and in the presence of the
officers of the law ; and, under all the circumstances,
whatever assault had been committed wits in every way
justifiable.
(The trial had not concluded when our report left.)