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

CHANCERY-(Tiiir, 1),,A

LADBROKK V. SMITH.
The arguments in this appeal, wc,ich have already occu-
pied three days, were resumed and concluded to-day. The
case came before the Court upon appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor of England, overruling a demurrer.
The bill was filed for the purpose of enforcing the specific
performance of an agreement to take the lease of a colliery at
Workworth, in Northumberland, which the plaintiff held
under Lady Newburgh. The defendant alleging
that the plaintiff ha'l not fulfilled certain primary
conditions with respect to the formation of a sufficient har-
bour and other work', declined to perform the agreement;
and considering that it was not one which a court of equity
would enforce, they put in a general demurrer, which the
Vice-Chancellor of England overruled, and from that judg-
ment the present appeal was brought.
His LORDSHIP, at the conclusion of the arguments to-day,
postponed his judgment.
DEN KS 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 remainin.:, 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 wasPaTt-:baardiesterda;,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 rersonalty 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.
TUE DUKE OF LEEDS V. LORD 41_1111E1MT.
The arguments in this case were commenced, and the
further consideration postponed till to-morrow.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. \Victual.)
EAST V. EAST.
This suit was instituted by a ward against the executors
for mal-administration of his estate. On a termer 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 for 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 dope ; but he must be held liable for all the
acts of his co-executor, to whatever extant 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.

UEEN'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
'/ 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 sharebnkers at Leeds, where
defendant also carried on business as a tradesman. The evi-
dence was, that defendant inAructed Bar to buy ten shares
for him on the 16th of October. On the same day Bar had
received authority from a person named Hay, to buy twenty
shares 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
Plaintiff applied to both, but they refused to have any-
thing to do with them. The Learned Counsel contended
that there was no evidence of a specific application of the
'ontract.
The COMM was of a different opinion, and refused the rule.
DAY D. SMARM
This was another case, arising out of railway 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 bad been a partner in the concern, and as such
could not sue. Plaintiff brought his action for work and
labour cone 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 filename 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-
cessary to get a certificate of provisional registration, and
plaintiff and defendant sigued a document which was neces-
nary. to procure that certificate, and plaintiff alto 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-
',ember, 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.
...Rale 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 illaintiff 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
scheme which proposed to unite the London and
'lmmingham 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
ground. It appeared that when plaintiff became secretary,
e gave 8. guarantee to all the directors, except the defendant,
that he would advance money, and transact the business of
the 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.)
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Mr. CoantE applied,r.on the part of a person named De-
phlige, at present
up
appuilseoner in York Castle, for a writ of
certiorari to bring proceedings taken before the county
coroner, and also t.,,r a rule'l. show_ case why the prisoner
should not be admitted to btaoilso.ho,rhe Learned *Counsel stated
that he mowed for the rule
atcau on the affidavits of
Several persons who were presentvthe transaction. From
their statements it appeared that
carrier,the
lrisoner was in the
near Leeds. On
employ of a person named Itiulte, a
the 2d of April last the prisoner, who was
driving
ter's horse and cart, stopped with them at the t his
n(I,Z.
The landlord of that place invited the prisoner to ido:al
r"
after they had both taken enough to make them thoroughly
y andly
intoxicated, they went out, and some scuffle arose betweenough
them; they returned to the house, and the prisoner again
asked the deceased to come out and fight. The deceased did
$O, 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 COI.ERIDGE—The ease is one of manslaughter.
Mr. Cuittum—Yes, my Lord; but the case is of such a na-
ture that I ant induced to hope this application will not be
refused.
The rule for a certiorari was then made absolute, and a
rule nisi to show cause granted.

CLARKE v. HUOXES. •
Mr. MACAULAY moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be set aside and a new trial
granted, on the ground 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-
!'eY4 Within a given time, and had employed the plaintiff.
fn consequence of some quarrel which had arisen between
. Breere and the company he lett, without having paid
Mr.iu Clarke. Mr. Cann, the agent of the company, had then
to the plaintiff that he should continue to work, and
that he would not only see that he was paid for
the future, but
paid up. His _that all his arrears should be
of
whom
Friend then called two
witnesses, each
against Mr. Hughes. Tlinle was about to bring an action
They both stated that they had been
employed by Mr. Breere, along with the plaintiff, but that
they afterwards worked the direction of Mr. Cann, the
company's agent. Another. vriess had also deposes! that
Mr. Cann had stated to the Plaintiff, and to himself, that
Breere had received 1,900/
,yeot had not done justice to
the company; and had protnised
The rest of thepart of the com-
pany, to see the witnesses.
an account given of some proceedingso the- case consisted of
in February, at the board of directrii,lhtch had taken place
proved that the plaintiff. with other s4rivt Moorgate. It lace
proved and seen Alderman 11. Hughes,e 7' had gone to
that they had not been paid, had said thatl%
ito,woli hearing
painful thing, hut that the company- were about to wind most
its affairs, for the deposits had not been • ind up
paid. He would
however, see them paid on the e2rliest opportunity
The case, on the part of the defendant, was that i ,
twa n
employed
s
ordinary case, in which the surveyor had been Di a--
an engineer to take part in the fulfilment of a oyed by
oiract for
which he himself was liable, It was like the ordinary
where a man had contracted to build a house, and ahrllcem-
ployed workmen and an agent. If the agent interfered with
the workmen to expedite them in their work, he was not
liable to be regarded as the person on 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-
fendants, 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. Mr. Breere had
stated in his evidence that he was en aged to perform the
Surveys in a given time, that be had gone to London to
engage the plaintiff, whom be had before employed in a si-
milar manner. He had received no instructions from the
caaPanY to employ him, and, in fact, employed him entirely
ell his own account.
]dr. Justice COLERIDGE said that the defendants had pra
33
ea to pay the rnoriey due by Mr. Breen at the interview
1/4411"144 Ss piece in iivartsta.

Mr. MACAULAY slid that, with respect to that interview,
he had the strongest p. seible affidavits from the secretary to
the company, who was present at the time. After the ab
sence of Mr. Breere, the works were carried on under Mr.
Bawsley, the engineer to the company. The Under. Sheriff
had not put the case to the jury in a proper manner.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said that if it was a contract from
Bawsley himself with the plaintiff, the Under-Sheriff might
have been in error, but if it were a contract made by Mr.
Bawsley on the part of the company, it might be merely
the ordinary case of an agent acting without authority.
The proceedings had, however, subsequently been confirmed
by a promise to pay.
Mr. MACAULAY said that Mr. Breere had employed the
plaintiff to do work for the company, but that expression
was merely used to describe the sort of work the plaintiff was
to be employed on, and so it might be with Mr. Bawsley.
With respect to the admission of Alderman Hughes, it might
be a ratification of the employment by Bawsley, but his Lord-
ship would see, on coming to the summing up of the Under-
Sheriff, that throughout the trial Bawsley had never been
treated as the agent of the company, and that the employ-
ment by him was regarded as a thing distinct from the em-
ployment of the company; and consequently the defendant
could not be liable, as a provisional director of the company.
Some discussion here arose as to the point of misdirection
on the Under-Sheriff summing up, and it appeared that the.
summtrn.isugsutireheadotnEont
ibneoenx vwearisfioefd
oopniutihoeuatflihadtavtiilt.
es summing
up of the Under-Sheriff ought not to be trusted to the memo-
ries of counsel.
Mr. MACAULEY said that he had always understood that,
where there had been counsel on both sides, the summing up
VMS not necessarily to be in the affidavits.
Mr. Justice CoLERIDGE said that it would not be necessary
if both parties agreed in their version of it, but in case of any
disstnt by the opposite party, how were they to proceed? In
the superior courts the judge always noted the points,so that
there could be no dispute.
Mr. MACAULEY asked permission to be allowed to verify
the summing up of the affidavits. He had got a short-hand
note of the whole proceedings.
Mr. Justice ConEftinGE intimated that such a course could
not be adopted. The Learned Counsel had better take a rule
to show cause. The case would very likely be brought for-
ward by a motion.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.