The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-02 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

THE OXFORD AND CANTERRIIRY HALL—The case of tne
Oxford and Canterbury Hall Company has been brought
before Lord Justice Giffard in the Court of Appeal. The
company before an order was made to wind it
up, had mortgaged property to the London and County
Bank as a security for the payment of a debt
amounting to about £lO,OOO. The Bank afterwards con-
tracted to sell part of this mortgaged property for £8,500,
but as the contract afterwards went off, Vice-Chancellor
James held that they were entitled to prove for
the full amount of the mortgage debt in the
winding-up. The official liquidator appealed against this
decision on the ground that they were only entitled to
prove for the amount of the claim they originally
sent in, which was for the difference between the
£8,500 and the mortgage debt. The Lord Justice said
as the mortgage debt was still unpaid, the mortgagees had
clearly a right to prove for the full amount of it, and the
appeal must be dismissed.

THE TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
COMPANY.—This company was originally formed with a
capital of £747,000, in £2O shares, but having been
amazingly prosperous in their transactions, it is now
proposed to reduce the capital. In the Court of
Vice-Chancellor James, however, Mr. Macnaughton,
represented certain persons who claimed to be
entitled to object to the proposed reduction. The indi-
viduals in question had leased a quantity of land to the
company for a premium, and a fixed annual rental ; and
the point now contended for was, that if they were
in such a position that if the company were
being wound -up their claim would be admis-
sible in proof, that their consent could not be
dispensed with unless terms were arrived at. The Vice-
Chancellor held that the plaintiffs had a locus standi, and
ordered that the residue of the premium (25,100), together
with three years' rent, altogether amounting to upwards
of £7,000, should be payable to them at the termination
of twenty years.
A SOLICITOR AND HIS CLERK.—The question was
raised in the Rolls' Court whether a solicitor was
bound by a verbal contract entered into by his managing
clerk, A Mr. Deere, who wished to invest in freehold
property, called at the office of Mr. Darley, a solicitbr,
and made arrangements with his clerk, whom he mistook
for Mr. Darley, to whom he had been recommended to
purchase property of the value of £4,000. It was agreed
that the costs should not exceed £5O, but when the
matter was ready for completion, it was notified
to the plaintiff that the costs would be £2IL This
sum he refused to pay, on the ground of the
ageement, and Mr. Darley got an order for costs, which
Mr. Deere's counsel now applied to set aside.—Lord
Romilly held that a mere verbal arrangement with a clerk
did not bind a solicitor. Mr. Deere had seen Mr. Darley
subsequent to the arrangements, but it was not men-
tioned between them. The motion must be dismissed.

CORRECTING A COUNTY COURT JUDGE.-Mr. Ilolker,
Q. C., appeared before the Court of Common Pleas to
shew cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Nasmyth on
the 20th April, calling upon J. B. Dasent, Esq., the
judge of the Shoreditch County Court, to hear a certain
plaint. It was an action brought by one David
Davis against J. B. Pearce, and when it
came before the court the learned judge re-
quired the plaintiff to give proof of the personal
service of the plaintiff upon the defendant, who was ac-
tually present to defend the action. His Honour had
relied upon the 30th and 31st Viet., cap. 132, sec. 2, in
requiring such proof, as he had received notice from the
defendant of his intention to question the jurisdiction of
the Court. On failure of such proof, he nonsuited the
plaintiff, and ordered him to pay the defendant's costs.
It was contended that under the section
the judge was bound to require proof of
personal service ; and it was most important to him
to have the guidance of the Court in the• matter. The
Court, without calling upon Mr. Nasmyth to reply, held
that the judge had incorrectly interpreted the section in
question. He ought to have heard the plaint, and there-
fore the rule must be made absolute; but the Court would
not require his Honour to pay the costs of the rule under
the circumstances.

THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY COMPANY.—A special case
has been stated for the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench in the case of the Taff Vale Railway Company.
The plaintiffs, Macnab and others, are trustees and
executors of the late Marquis of Bute, and the question
was whether the railway company were bound by the
terms of a lease granted to them in 1849, for
250 years of the east side of the Bute West Dock
at Cardiff, to pay dues for goods and minerals loaded at
the Penarth Dock, a mile distant. A covenant in the
lease provided that the company were to pay dues for
goods loaded at the Bute West Dock or any
other dock or basin whatsoever. Since then the
Penarth Dock had been made at the mouth of the
River Ely, and the defendants' company had taken a
999 years lease of the undertaking which was alleged to in
contravention of an undertaking on their part to prosper
in every way possible, the Bute Dock. Mr. Justice
Blackburn held that the covenant referred to a dock,
in the immediate vicinity. It could not be affirmed that
the Penarth Dock was such, said judgment must be for
the defendants.
A NEWSPAPER LIBEL.-A curious case has come be-
for the Court of Exchequer. Some time since Mr.
Cox, who was candidate for Leicestershire at the
last general election, brought an action against Alr. Lee,
a newspaper proprietor, for publishing a libel against him,
contained in an electioneering speech of Mr. Frewen, the
rival candidate. He obtained a verdict for £2O.
Subsequently Mr. Lee brought an action
against
Mr. Frewen on an alleged promise to indemnify
him against the consequences of the libel action. It was
tried at Westminster, before the Lord Chief Baron. and
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3OO.
A rule was subsequently obtained for a new trial,
on the ground of the verdict being against the evidence,
and the damages being excessive. The Lord Chief Baron
said Mr. Frewen ought in all conscience to satisfy the de-
mand, and he thought the evidence fully sus-
tained the declaration, as the plaintiff had been
put to much annoyance and discredit. He had
better however have published an apology. He was en-
titled to some compensation, but the court thought the
damages should be reduced to £l5O. Otherwise there
would be a new trial. The plaintiff's counsel., having
agreed to the reduction, the rule was discharged on that
understanding.

FORM OF VERDICTS.—An American
.paper pro-
poses "Justifiable Insanity" as a couvemsgt brut of
yordict 3uautuy civet%