The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, Dec. 14.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
THE ROYAL ETCHINGS.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. STRANGE.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT v.
STRANGE AND OTHERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. J. Russell then proceeded to reply, but the So-
licitor-General having tendered for the consideration of
the Court several affidavits in reply to the answer, some
considerable discussion took place, which ended in the
rejection by his Honour of the reception of those
affidavits.

Mr. RUSSELL then resumed his reply upon the whole
case; at the conclusion of which

His HONOUR desired to be furnished with the informa-
tion, bill, and answer, stating that he should attentively
consider the case before he gave his judgment.
The Court did not rise till half-past three o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 14.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and
Common Juries.)
NICHOLSON V. MYERS.
This was an action to recover 241. 4s. 9d. the amount
of a bill of exchange. It appeared that the
bill bore date on the 24th of January, 1843, and was for
three months. It was drawn by the plaintiff, a rag
merchant, upon a person named Garnett, and endorsed
by the defendant to Nicholson, the plaintiff. The de-
fendants pleaded, first, that the bill was not presented at
the time when it became due, that no notice had been
given of dishonour, and that the defendant had paid the
bill. Evidence was adduced to show that the defendant
drew the bill.

Mr. HuaninEr, who appeared for the defendant, said
the bill had been paid, and that this action was an at.,
tempt to obtain the money a second time, nearly six
years after. The bill was, after payment, allowed to
remain in the hands of the plaintiff, in order that he
might sue Garnett for the amount. No receipt was,
unfortunately, taken.
The defendant's daughter and another witness proved
the payment of the money.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Chief Justice
WILDE and a Common Jury.)
DAY V. HART AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff in this case brought his action to recover
damages for an injury inflicted upon him by the servant
of the defendant, and witnesses were called, who stated
that, on the 23d of May last, he was driving a cart
violently down Holborn .Hill, and proceeded until he
reached Farringdon-street, when the wheel struck the
plaintiff, who is 60 years of age, as he was crossing from
Farringdon-street to Victoria-street. The result of
the blow was, that the plaintiff was thrown down,
his coat was torn, and a wound was inflicted on the
elbow of his right arm, which rendered him unfit to
pursue his usual occupation. The plaintiff was deaf of
both ears.

The defendant's case was that the vehicle driven by
his servant was a travelling trap, drawn by one horse.
That whilst going dowa the hill he was preceded by an
omnibus, which was stopped at the bottom of the hill
that the skid might be taken from the wheel. The con-
sequence of this was that the defendant's vehicle was
obliged to be driven to the right band side of the
road to pass. At this time the plaintiff was about
crossing, and was seined by a person who wished to
preserve him from danger. Upon this the plaintiff
turned round, and the step of the vehicle struck his
right arm and tore his coat. When the accident occurred
the people cried out to the defendant's servant as fol-
lows:—" Go on ; not hurt ; it is not your fault." The
trap was going down the hill at a rate of not more than
two miles an hour, and the accident was the fault of the
plaintiff.

- A witness was also called to prove that some person,
who said ho was an Old Bailey lawyer, had followed the
trap to the Old Change, and said he would bring an ac
tion unless half a sovereign were given to him.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 151.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and Common Juries.)
OFFER V. THE BIRMINGHAM CROWN AND PLATE GLASS
COMPANY.
This was an action to recover the sum of 19/. 10s. for
work and labour done. The only question in this case
was, whether the defendants were liable to pay the
money as a joint stock company. The evidence on this
point was, that they were a company formed by trans-
ferable shares, and the verdict was given for the plain-
tiff accordingly.

BEAGIN V. SHERXAN.
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the value
of certain shares, which the defendant was alleged to
have contracted for, and compensation for the loss sus-
tained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant's
not having accepted them. The declaration stated that
the plaintiff sold a quantity of scrip shares in the Namur
and Liege Railway Company to the defendant, at 41. per
share, to be delivered on the 28th of November then
next following, and to be then paid for. It then pro-
ceeded to aver a breach of the contract, that the plaintiff
being ready and willing to deliver the shares, the defen-
dant was not to be found at his rsual place of business,
having left England and gone to Belgium; and further,
that the shares were tendered to the defendant on his
return, but that the latter refused to accept them. The
defendant pleaded non assumpsit, denied some of the al-
legations in the declaration, and pleaded further, that the
Namur and Liege Railway Company was not registered.
The reply was, that the company did not require regis-
tration, and issue was joined upon the other pleas.
Mr. Watson, Mr. Corrie, and Mr. Manisty, were for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin and Mr. Wilde for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a member of the Stock
Exchange, and that the defendant, who was the proprie-
tor of the Bull and Mouth Inn, Piccadilly, had been ex-
tensively engaged in railway share transactions, in the
year 1845. A bargain was made between the plaintiff
and the defendant in the month of November, in that
year, for the sale of thirty shares in the Namur and
Liege Railway Company. In substance the agreement
was that the plaintiff should pay 41, per share; and
though no particular day was named for the delivery, it
was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the bargain
was understood to be made for the next account day.
When the day of the delivery arrived, the shares in
question had fallen in value to the extent of 21. per
share, but the defendant in the meanwhile had gone
to Belgium, and the plaintiff was consequently
unable to deliver them. The defendant did not
return until after the expiration of six or eight months,
hut as aeon as the plaintiff was aware of his
having returned, he sent his brother to his office, with
the shares, who made a tender of them on his behalf.
The defendant first denied all knowledge of the bargain,
and then refused to accept them, on the ground that he
ought to have had them much earlier, to which it was re-
plied that he was not in the way to receive them at the
proper time. The shares were sold to the defendant at
par, but during the absence of the defendant, there were
two calls upon the shares of 21. each, which the plaintiff
paid in obedience to the rules of the Stock Exchange.
In this state of the facts, the present action was brought
to recover 1201., the value of the shares, and 1204 for the
amount of the two calls.

Mr. Barnes, a member of the Committe of the Stock
Exchange, was called to explain the nature of the bar-
gain, and he stated that in the month of November, 1845,
the defendant called him out of the Stock
Exchange to inquire the price of Namur and
Liege shares. He answered that he did not deal in
them, and therefore did not know. The plaintiff came
up whilst they wera conversing, and then the
witness said—" Here is a young man who deals in them,
and he will tell you the price." The plaintiff said he had
some Namur and Liege shares, and then the defendant
agreed to take them. The defendant said he wanted
fifty, but the plaintiff said he had only thirty. Such a
bargain might either be for immediate delivery, or for
the next account day, according to the hour at which it
was made.

By Mr. MARTIN—It is a rule of the Stock Exchange
that the broker should pay the calls accruing due be-
twee❑ purchase and delivery.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—There is no occasion to
have the rule of the Stock Exchange upon that point ;
it is the rule of common sense. If a man sells a cow to
be delivered next week, he must feed her in the mean-
while.

The witness, on being cross-examined, further ex-
pressed his opinion that the defendant's words, "let me
have them," or " or send them in," meant that the shares
were to be delivered immediately.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that the only question
in the case was, whether this was a contract for imme-
diate delivery, or for delivery on the 28th of November?
He thought it was for immediate delivery, from the plain-
tiff's saying " I have only thirty."
The jury immediately delivered a verdict for the de-
fendant on the issue of non assumpsit, and for the plain.
tiff on the other issues.