The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-27 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 26:

(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Common Juries.)
WILLIAMS V. SIR WATRINS WILLIAMS WYNN. .

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 501.
from the defendant, under the following circumstances :
The plaintiff is a saddler, and in the year 1843 supplied
the defendant with saddlery to the amount of 170/. A
person of the name of White, who had held the situation
of coachman in the defendant's family, was intrusted, in
July, 1844, with 700/, in order that he might dis-
charge accounts which made up that sum, the plaintiff's
account (1701.), beingone of them. All the tradesmen, with
the exception of the plaintiff, came to White, who was
in a bad state of health, and had their bills discharged.
He went to the plaintiff's shop in a cab, and stated to
him that he was short of 501., and asked him to take
120/. and to give him a receipt for thel7o/., on the under-
standing that he should remit him the 501. in a few days
from the country. The plaintiff, after some hesitation,
acceded to the proposition, took the 1201, and sent
White in the evening a receipt for the full amount, but
he omitted to obtain any memorandum from him for the
501. In a fortnight after White died.
Maurice, foreman of Williams at the time in question,
deposed to the payment of the 1201. by White, and his
obtaining a receipt for the full amount of the bill.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Henderson appeared for
the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., who appeared for the defendant,
in addressing the Court, dwelt upon the great credulity
which was necessary to induce any one to believe that a
man in business like the plaintiff had given a receipt for
money he had never received, and in order that a
servant who had received the money to discharge his
account might be furnished with a document to deceive
his master. If the transaction did take place it was one
entirely of a private nature between the plaintiff and
White, for which the defendant could not be held
amenable. He trusted they would return a verdict for
the defendant, and thus teach the plaintiff and other
persons not to put their hands to documents which were
to be shown to third persons, and the correctness of
which they might subsequently dispute.
A number of witnesses were called for the defence.
Mrs. White proved that her husband went to the
plaintiff, and that in the evening he sent the receipt in
full, enclosed in an envelope, to Sir Watkins Williams
Wynn. Her husband never stated that he had borrowed
the 501.
Mr. J. Bolton, a cornchandler, stated that Williams
informed him that he had lent White 501., and regretted
that he had taken no memorandum for it. He remon-
strated with him for lending 50/. to a man who was in a
dying state, to which he replied, that he could not deny
him, on account of his condition. He also deprecated
his giving a receipt in full for money he had never re.
ceived, as it was most unlike the conduct of a trades-
man, and was more than he would do for any man.
Mr. Judd, a bootmaker, and John Hudson and
Thomas Harris, servants of the defendant, deposed to
similar facts.
Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., contended, in his reply, that the
defendant was liable for the act of White, as it had been
clearly shown that he had not received the 501., and that
he only lent it, on the express uLderAanding that White
should return it in a few days, when he received some
more money from the steward.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, held that the defend.
ant was liable if the plaintiff did not receive the money,
and that the giving of a receipt in full for money not
received, though a most imprudent mode of transacting
business, was not conclusive, because a receipt might be
obtained in an improper manner. But if, on the other
hand, they considered that White had the money in his
possession at the time, and that the plaintiff chose to
forego the 50/. for his convenience, and to make White his
debtor for the amount, then he apprehended that it would
resolve itself into a private transaction, of which they
could not hold the defendant liable.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
HOCKIN V. SQUIRE.

This was an undefended action, and was brought to
recover a promissory note for 1001., and 371. 19s. for in-
terest, and the jury gave a verdict for 1371. 19s.
EVANS V. FLETCHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is
an upholsterer, to recover from the defendant, Marianne
Fletcher, 851. for furniture supplied to her order in May
last year. The plea set up was, that she was a marri€d
woman at the time. This, in fact, was the main ques-
tion at issue.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared for the defendant,
and Mr. Pearson for the plaintiff.
Mr. James Read, employed in a Liverpool ware-
house, produced a certificate of the defendant's mar-
riage at the Collegiate Church, Manchester, in February,
1824. He was present. and was an attesting witness.
Her husband, Horatio Fletcher, left England for Ame-
rica several years after.
William Henry Fletcher, an accountant and
auctioneerjsaid he was defendant's brother-in-law. He
produced letters from his brother who was in Philadel-
phia, dated June and July last. He did not know how
the defendant obtained her living ; he had not seen her
since June last, when the case was before the Court
until this morning, and he had not heard of her for
many years before. She lived in Duke-street, St.
James's. He never inquired how she obtained her
living, because he had no curiosity to know—he did not
know that she had represented herself as a single
woman.

Mr. J. H. Rotting said he was employed by the
plaintiff to supply furniture to the defendant, who re-
presented herself as a widow, and as having 3,0001. in
the house of Messrs. Jones and Lloyd, Manchester. He
should say her house was one of accommodation.
David Harris, also in the service of the plaintiff, gave
corroborative evidence.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant
SHILLIBEER v. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

This was an action brought by Mr. George Shillibeer,
,he inventor and proprietor of the patent funeral car-
riage, to recover compensation in damages for certain
serious injuries sustained by him on the 18th of October
last year, in a collision which took place at the Shore-
ditch station of the Eastern Counties Railway.
Mr. Parry and Mr. Wyse appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Sergeant Shea (with whom was Mr. Edwin
James) for the defendants.
Mr. WYSE opened the pleadings. The defendants had,
paid 75/. into Court, considering that sum sufficient com-
pensation for the injuries the plaintiff had sustained.
The damages were laid at 3,000/.
Mr. PARRY opened the case on the part of the plain-
tiff. He said, the issue of the case was of the utmost
importance, not only to the plaintiff, but to the public.
Mr. Shillibeer carried on an extensive and lucrative
business, not only in the large towns of this country, but
in many of the continental towns. The defendants,
whether celebrated or notorious, were well known as a
portion cf the public of this country ; they admitted
they had been guilty of negligence, and had paid 751.
into Court, stating in their plea that they did not con-
sider the plaintiff had sustained any damage beyond
what that sum would compensate. A
more scandalous
plea was never put upon the records of this Court, and
he was perfectly justified in characterising it as most
impudent—as a gross insult added to the serious
injury he had received. The facts of the case
were these :—On the 18th of October last year he
was a passenger by the five o'clock up-train from Here-
ford, which arrived safely at that portion of the Shore-
ditch station where the tickets were usually taken. The
tickets had been taken, and the train was being propelled
into the station ; and at the time the servants of the
company must have known that the train was advancing,
whether from negligence of the driver or from gross
neglect on the part of same of the servants in neglecting
to show the proper signals, he could not tell, an engine
ran along the platform, and came into violent col-
lision with the Hereford train ; several of
the carriages were broken, and Mr. Shillibeer
and others were injured. A case of greater negligence
had never occurred, the cause of the collision being. he
believed, the neglect of the proper signals. Mr. Shil-
libeer was carried into an ante-room in an insensible
state, and it was ultimately found that he had re-
ceived a concussion of the brain, his upper left jaw
was broken, and his teeth dislodged, one of the
facial nerves was destroyed, and he had not recovered
and probably never would completely recover from the
injuries he had received. His whole nervous system
had been considerably shaken, and even now, in
the latter end of 1846, he could not endure the
night air without great pain and swelling in the
parts injured. He had already paid between 601. and
7.0 for
a medical
ple
compensation advice,
desperate defendants
in jconsidered
r
-51 m
incapacitating him from attending to his business, and
entrusting it to others—for journeys to the country, in
the hope of restoring his health. If they wished to
afford impunity to corporate insolence, they would find
for the defendants, but he trusted they would
do their duty to the plaintiff and to the public,
and compel the defendants to do justice. They
disregarded public remonstrance, and it therefore
rested with the jury to teach the Eastern Counties Com-
pany that, if they were guilty of negligence, and caused
serious and lasting injuries to those who were compelled
to travel by their line, they should afford due compen-
sation to the parties so injured.
Mr. Lawrence, engine-driver on the Eastern Counties
—Left for Stratford at six o'clock with a coke train on
the up line, intending to cross to the down line at a
short distance. He had not gone far before the train
came into violent collision with the parcel up-train, to
which no signal light was attached. Considerable
damage was done to the engine and some of the car-
riages. Saw Mr. Shillibeer, who was insensible. Some

one showed him a white light before he started.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEA—Was dis-
charged immediately after the occurrence. If there had
been a signal light in the train the accident would not
have happened. A light was placed on the train the
next night. He had been six years in the service of the
company, and seldom travelled on that part of the line.
John Brundley, late inspector on the Eastern Coun-
ties, deposed to the condition of Mr. Shillibeer imme-
diately after the accident.
Mr. Geary, assistant to Mr. Ancorn, deposed that he
saw the plaintiff a quarter of an hour after the accident.
He was insensible, and there was a great deal of blood
about his face. His eye was considerably swollen.

Mr. Anccrn said he was in the habit of attending .
many of the servants employed on the Eastern Counties.
When he first saw the plaintiff, soon after the acci-
dent, he was in a state of semi stupor, in which state
he continued for nearly eight days, when he was
allowed to leave his room. There was a fracture of
the jaw-bone, and the facial nerve was so much injured
that until latterly he could scarcely bear the influence
of the night wind upon the part. The most serious
part of the injuries he had received had not yet
developed itself, and if the swelling, which was in a
morbid state did not subside, he would most likely have
to undergo an operation. In the earlier stages his memory
seemed impaired, but it had improved since he visited
Brighton. His nervous energy had been greatly im-
paired by the accident.
Dr. Aston Key, surgeon to Guy's Hospital and to
Prince Albert, stated he had seen the plaintiff four times,
the first time early in this year. His left jaw and teeth
were displaced, and he complained of want of sight, of
smell, and loss of memory. The nerves above and below
the eye were very painful. There was a swelling in the
mouth, with respect to which an operation might be
necessary. He first saw him in February, and the
last time a few days ago. He considered
when he first saw him he was suffering from concussion
of the brain. He had greatly improved ; a man who
had received such injuries was more sensitive to disease,
and could not enjoy wine or society so much as a man
who had not been so injured.
By Mr. Sergeant SHEA—He had improved, and would
no doubt continue to improve.
Dr. Garraway, of Guy's Hospital, agreed with the
last witness in his material statements.

Mr. H. W. Shillil •ar, a solicitor at Taunton, and cousin
of the plaintiff, spoke to the great change which the ac-
cident had worked in the plaintiff. Before it, he was
one of the best drivers in London, but now he was
nervous and irritable, and now drove a pony. He drove
him (witness) down to Westminster this morning. He
had visited him at Taunton, and at dinner took a mode-
rate quantity of wine.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA then proceeded to address the
Court on behalf of the Eastern Counties Railway. He
mainly addressed himself to the mitigation of damages,
and considered that the case was one in which but
small damages would be sufficient. His Learned Friend
had imputed the greatest neglect to the company, but
they bad done all in their power to prevent the recur-
rence of such accidents by immediately discharging the
driver, who had been in their service six years, who, it
appeared was in a wrong track, and he, as well as the
other servants of the company, must have known that
the train was on the eve of its arrival. The
company deeply regretted the accident, and
at once admitted that the plaintiff was entitled
to compensation, and they had been willing to
afford him as much as they considered him reasonably
entitled to, but as his demands were unreasonable, they
had no other course left than to allow the matter to be
submitted to a jury, satisfied that justice would be done,
and that they would not be unduly sacrificed.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and left the amount of
damages in the hands of the jury, who, after a few
minutes' consideration, found a verdict for the plaintiff.
—Damages, 5001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26.
GRANT V. DICKER, MACKENZIE AND PRICE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff (who sued
in forma pauperis), late a clerk in the employ of the
Irish West Coast Railway, to recover a sum of money
alleged to be due from the defendants, for services ren-
dered on behalf of the company.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs appeared for the plaintiff, and
in his opening statement, said that the plaintiff hud b€ en
employed as a clerk to the above-named company, and
that the three defendants were members of the provi-
sional committee. The plaintiff was engaged at a salary
of 10s. 6d. per day, and having occasion to go to Ireland
on business connected with the company, he was to re-
ceive, while upon that business, 255. per day, and it was
to recover the sum so due to him that the present action
was brought.

No evidence having been given to show the connexion
of the defendants with the company, the plaintiff was
nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 26.
FEARN V. THE EARL OF MEXBOROUGH.
This was an action brought to recover, from the Earl
of Mexborough, 500!. on a bill of exchange.
Evidence having been briefly taken, a verdict was
given to the plaintiff for the amount.
IN RE MRS. SHUTTLEWORTFL
Sir JOHN BAYLEY was heard shortly to-day against
the rule obtained by Mr. O'Brien on Tuesday, to show
cause for issuing a writ of habeas corpus, ordering Dr.
Millengen, of Chelsea, to bring up the body of Martha
Eliza Shuttleworth, an alleged lunatic. The rule was
moved for on affidavit, denying the lunacy, and the ar-
gummt, as far as it went, was mainly directed to this
question. The further hearing of the case was ad-
journed till Monday afternoon next, at four o'clock.
We reserve the details till the argument is closed.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 26.
DEPOSITS OF SHARES-BELLIN V. CREPT.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
161. 10s. for money received for and on account of the
plaintiff, on the sale of some shares in the Derby, Ut-
toxeter, and Stafford Railway Company.
An application was made for the postponement of the
cause for a short time, for the attendance of Mr. Sergeant
Chadwick Jones, who had been retained for the de-
fendant, and had the documents necessary for the defence;
the plaintiff's attorney, however, opposed, and
The Learned UNDER-SIIERIFF said that he was bound
to take the case, as it was in rotation. The brief only
having been delivered over night, and on the last day of
term, it was hardly to be expected the Learned Counsel
could attend.
The case was then proceeded with.
The plaintiff's attorney: stated the: case. The plain-
tiff was indebted in May last to the defendant in the
sum of 1001., and gave him 75 shares in the Derby, Ut-
toxeter, and Stafford Railway Company, which he was
to sell, and repay himself the 1001., and hand over the
difference. The shares had been sold for 1261. 17s. 6d.
Defendant paid over 121., and the balance was now
sought to be recovered.
Mr. Edward Daniel Chattaway was called, and proved
that in May last he was present at the Hall of Com-

merce when the plaintiff and defendant were present.
Defendant said that he had sold the shares in two lots,
40 in one, and 35 in the other, and they fetched 345. and
345. 6d. per share. Defendant paid 121., and said that if
plaintiff would call at the office he would make out the
account and hand over the balance.

The defendant's attorney said that he was placed in
an awkward position by not having the papers, but
proceeded to cross-examine the witness. Plaintiff is an
East India agent. Witness had been secretary to the
company, which was now defunct. It certainly was not
a "bubble," but there was no railroad. The offices of
the company had been at No. 62, Moorgate-street. De-
fendant said he had sold the shares, and the inference
was that he had received the money; he distinctly said
that he would make out the account. Witness was not
acquainted with the practice of the share market as to
the sale of shares, or what commission was paid. Wit-
ness had bought and sold shares, and had paid 6d. on
each share. Never knew that as much as Is. 3d. per
share was charged, but the commission varied according
to the value of the shares.

The defendant's attorney then proceeded to address
the jury, and put in a memorandum, to the effect that the
plaintiff bad made a deposit of the shares as a security
for 100/. advanced, and if the amount was not repaid
within 14 days, the defendant was to be at liberty to sell
the same and apply the proceeds to liquidating his claim.
An objection was taken that it was an agreement re-
quiring a stamp, and it was therefore rejected as evidence.
The defendant's attorney then contended that there
was no evidence as to what the shares were, or how
much they had really fetched, and that the payment of
the 121 was a settlement of the account.

A Mr. Bedford was called to show that the shares did
not fetch more than 11. 12s. or 11. 12s. 6d., but he could
only speak to the best of his recollection.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said, if the first wit-
ness was to be depended on—and he saw no reason to
doubt his evidence—the case was made out of a promise
to pay some balance after the payment of the 121. As
to the amount, it should be remarked, that in charging
the prices at 345. and 345. 6d., as the witness could not
remember which lot was sold at the larger sum, the
plaintiff charged it on the smallest lot..
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
THE ELY AND HUNTINGDON RAILWAY COXPANY
V. RYDER.

This was an action brought by the Ely and Hunting.
don Railway Company against the defendant, one of the
shareholders, to recover a call of 21. 10s. on 106 shares
allotted to the defendant.

The defendant suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. BIRCH appeared as counsel for the company, and
called evidence in support of the case.

A question arose it; to the liability of the defendant
to pay interest from the day on which the call was to
be paid. There was no count in the declaration to carry
interest, and the Learned Under-Sheriff was at first of
opinion that notice ought to be given that the calls
were due.

Mr. BIRCH submitted that a general notice was suffi-
cient, and that it was not necessary that individual no-
tice should be proved.
Mr. ROBINSON said he thought there could be no
question that shares bore interest.
Mr. BIRCH quoted the case of the Southampton Dock
Company v. Richards (1 Scott's Law Reports, 219), and
on that authority
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said the jury could, if
they thought proper, give interest by way of damages.
The jury gave a verdict for 2731. 7s. 7d., allowing in-
terest at five per cent.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Henry Eames, aged 28, described as a servant, was in-
dicted for a rape on a child under•ten years of age.
Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr. Prendergast defended
the prisoner.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty of the
capital offence, but Guilty of an assault.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN did not conceive that the
assault was comprised in the felony; he therefore
directed a verdict of Not Guilty to be recorded, and the
prisoner was ordered to be detained, in order that an
indictment of feluny might be preferred against him.