The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-08 00:00:00

RICKETTS V. NOBLE.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
the last assiz's for Surrey, when a verdict was found fLr
the plaintiff, damages 61.
lir. Sergeant SHEE moved for a rub.) to increase
damages. The plaintiff is a merchant in London, and
the defendant mate of a vessel called the Indian Chief,
who agreed to carry for the plaintiff 150 tierces of beef
and other provisions. They arrived in the river, and it
was discovered that they were damaged, which the plain-
tiff alleged arose from the imperfect mode of stowage.
The damages were laid at 71/.

The CHIEF BARON took time to consider the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
MELVILLE V. DODGE.

This action was tried at the last sittings in London,
before Chief Justice Wilde, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff for 447/.
Mr. COCKBURN now applied for a rule for a new trial
on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was
against the bulk of evidence. A young man named
Chedley entered into the service of the National Pro-
vincial Bank at Bideford as clerk, and the defen-
dant was surety for his good behaviour and honesty,
Whilst so employed, the young man was sent to a
customer of the bank residing ten miles distant from
Bideford to fetch some money ; he received the amount
for which the verdict was foutal, and on his way home
lost it. Mr. Cockburn contended that the surety was
not liable for the loss of the money, on the ground that
it was not the proper duty of the youth to fetch money
from a customer, and that the bank had no right to im-
pose such a duty upon him. He also contended that
the bulk of the evidence did not justify the jury in find-
ing a verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared that the jury
accompanied their verdict with an expres,ion of opinion
that it was not within the regular scope of the young
man's duty in the banking business to be so employed ;
and the Learned Counsel now held that he was acting not
as the agent of the bank, but as the agent of the customer
at the time in question.
The COURT did not take the same view of the case.
Notwithstanding the jury found that it was not the
custom of bankers in that part of the country to send to
their customers, the Court was of opinion it was part of
the banking business; and the services of the young man,
in being so employed, were perfectly legitimate, and were
such as his surety would apply to. The Court was of
opinion that the clerk received the money and held it as
a servant of the bank, and, in that view of the case,
thought there was no ground for a rule. With regard
to the evidence there was some difficulty, but although
there was nothing affecting the character of the young
man, the Court thought there was on his part some in-
advertence and neglect.—Rule refused.

COURT 0.1,' BAAKkUP.I.CY, Nov. 7.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
JAMES WALTER'S BANKRUPTCY.)
The bankrupt, who was described as of New Kent-
road, bookseller, came up for the Court's decision on the
question of certificate.
The point of the bankrupt's trading having been dis-
cussed,

Mr. Commissioner HOLKOYD gave judgment. He said,
looking at the bankrupt's balan,e-sheet, which com-
menced in August, 1846, it appeared that his trad,s trans-
actions literally amounted to nothing. For a certain
time it seemed he had made just sufficient to cover his
expenses. Unfortunately he (Id not confine himself to
the business in which he realized some profit, and for
which it appeared he had slime talent. Previous to Au-
gust, 1846, he carried on the business of a stockbroker,
and at the time the balance-sheet began he was stated
to be possessed of several shares in the South-Eastern
Railway Company, amounting in value to about 12,0001.
At the same period he was indebted to Davies and Co.,
of Liverpool, to the extent of 4,0001 The shares, which
were lodged with the above-named firm as security, were
gradually disposed of by them with the consent of the
bankrupt, btu still there was a large loss. The bankrupt
came to London in March, 1846, nominally es a book-
seller, but he had no trade creditors, and since then he
had been employed on the S nith Eastern Railway Com-
pany. In a transaction of the bankrupt with Messrs.
Carden and Whitehead, stockbrokers, in 1848, a con-
siderable loss was sustained in the purchase of 200 South-
Eastern shares, occasioned by the events of February
last, which produced a decline in all kinds of railway
stock, and the result was that the brokers were creditors
tAhoiutstgicueesrattmi
filoacsuatet.et.ofill:4l/. Taking. a!1 the facts into con-
sideration, his Honour said he thought the justice of the
case would be satisfied by suspending the bankrupt's cer-
tificateson named erhurpete
JOHN BOYD'S BANKRUPTCY.
The
e for six months, from the date of the meeting in
Protection was granted from month to month.
was severely
in business fora period
, beside
s a
whose silk manufacturer,cond
li iti
pl
pledging
dlsgoi cameng prouppe
property
amounted to 551i7ria traded in connexton with a per-
held as security for advances.
upon by the Cow t. Although
estimated distribution were
advin.
Mr. Commissioner ,esest.he property which creditors
autnadbeoeu:2l,omoooln.ths, the debts
the features of the case, thedoenly redeeming circumstance
ordered an adjournment of therate personal expenditure,
without protection, and should certificate for 12 months,
he hereafter be incarce-
rated the Court would only permit his release after he
II had undergone six months' imprisonment.