The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

HUNT V. PUCHAN.

This was an action arising out of the non-accept-
ances of a number of shares in the Manchester and
Southampton Railway Company. Mr. Hunt was a
provisional committeeman of this line, and as
such, was entitled to receive 100 shares. A short
time after he applied to the secretary for a
further allotment of shares over and above the 100.
Mr. Hunt was residing at Southampton, as also Mr.
Puckan, the defendant, who on the let of October went
up to London, and while there sent down instructions
by means of the electric telegraph to Mr. Clarke, a share-
broker of Southampton, in these words, "Buy me Man-
chester and Southampton shares at 4f or 44 premium,
and allotments at 4/. is. 3d. premium." Mr. Clark ac-
cordingly proceeded to purchase a number of shares and
allotments, including an allotment of 250 shares, for
which Hunt and the plaintiff had written to the com-
pany, and in writing to the defendant, then in London,
enumerating the purchases he had made, be mentioned
the 250 shares applied for by Hunt (the plaintiff), which
he had purchased at 51. premium. The company re-
fused, however, to allot to the plaintiff the 250 shares
he had applied for, and in consequence of his not
having received the shares, defendant said that he would
let him off his contract. On the 28th of October he
received a letter from the secretary of the company
stating that one hundred shares were allotted
to him as a member of the provisional committee.
The plaintiff paid the necessary deposits. Some delay,
however, took place in his receiving the scrip, during
which time its value was considerably reduced. Plain-
tiff then called upon the defendant, and requested him
to take the scrip according to the terms of the contract,
which the defendant refused, and the present action was
brought to compel defendant to make good the loss by
his refusal. A verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Mr. MoNTAnn CsAmßEas now moved for a new trial
upon the ground that there was no authority for the
defendant to make the contract, the instructions being
to buy shares, and not allotments of shares; secondly,
that ao unrt asonable time had elapsed before the scrip
was & livered to the defendant.
The COURT refused the rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

WINCH AND OTHERS V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.-

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Mr. MARTIN moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be set aside and a new
trial granted, or why judgment should not be arrested.
The action, which was one of considerable importance,
was tried at last Liverpool Assizes, before Mr. Justice
Cresswell, and a verdict given for the defendants--
damages, 7901. 14s. 3d. The plaintiffs were owners of a
ship, and the defendants had chartered for a vessel, the
Mary Wynch, to go out to the coast of West Africa, for
a cargo of guano ; and, in the failure of obtaining that,
to sail, under certain instructions, to Rio and Bahia, for
a cargo. The action was brought to recover the amount
of freight, which was refused, on the ground of non-ful-
filment of the terms of the contract. The defence was
that the captain had opened the sealed instructions given
him in the wrong latitude ; that he did not make proper
inquiry, according to the instructions, for guano ; and
that he sailed to Bahia, and from thence to Europe, in a
manner and time not warranted by the charter-party. This
was denied, the plaintiffs affirming that any failure of
the expedition arose from the inability to obtain guano,
and the imperfect nature of the instructions. The
Learned Gentleman went on to show that the defendants
had done all that was required of them by the charter,
and that the failure had been occasioned by the
captain of the vessel neglecting the express instructions
given him. This was the point left to the jury, and if
the instructions were read, and the evidence consulted,
it would be found that he had failed to carry them out in
many essential particulars.
Rule granted, with instructions that it be made a
special case.

OSBORNE V. PRITCHARD.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved for a new trial, in this
case, on the ground of surprise. This case was tried
before Mr. Justice.Erle, at the last London sittings, and
a verdict was giveil for the defendant. It was an action
brought by a railway surveyor, who was engaged by the
defendant in that capacity. The engagement was, that
the plaintiff should be employed on a certain railway
survey, at 3 guineas a day and expenses. This was in
November, 1845, and after being employed for a short
period, he was discharged ; it was alledged from incom-
petence. He then brought an action to recover for the
unfulfilled period of the engagement, the whole extend-
ing from the 22d of October to the 30th of November.
Rule refused.
BATTHO AND OTHERS V. THE COUNT BATHYHANY.
LIVERPOOL AND DERBY DIRECT RAILWAY.
Mr. WHITEHURST moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict on the ground of misdirection and its being
against evidence. He would also move that the da-
mages be reduced. The action was tried at Derby
before Mr. Justice Patteson, and a verdict given to the
plaintiff for 351. Bs. The plaintiffs were lithographers,
who sought to recover, for printing the prospectuses,
&c., of the Liverpool and Derby Direct Railway, of
which the defendant was a) provisional director. The
defence was, that defendant though he was named on the
attio and
Co.
provisionali committee, had never attended any of the
meetingsor had
Thean
Learnedypersonal
G
coenmtnileumnaincatsiuobnmiwttietdh
B
that in the precedent of Lambert v. Blaskitt, which was
heardthenoow._u
other day,
l ganradnated.
rule granted, the same should
be done

CLERKENWELL.-(THIS DAY.)
James Kelly was placed at the bar charged with rob-
bing his employers, Messrs. Pratt and Sewell, the exten-
sive stonemasons and paviours, of Gray's Inn-lane, to a
large amount.
Mr. Sewell, the junior partner in the firm, said the
prisoner was foreman over their wharf, at the Regent's-
canal, and on Tuesday last he was observed by one of
the workmen to bring a cart into the wharf yard, which
he ordered one of the labourers to load with five-feet
slabs, and it shortly aftc;rwards left, without any person
taking notice of the name upon it, the colour of the
horse, or anything further than that a tall, respectably-
dressed man accompanied it as it left the yard, and
turned down towards Maiden-lane. The prisoner had
made r4o r eturn to the book-keeper of having sent out
any goods. On a previous occasion fifty flags more than
those mentioned had been sent out.
Mr. GREENWOOD observed that it was evident there
was a system of plunder going on, but he thought at
momenta party equally
.guilty with the
the receiver, or prime instigator--
and he should therefore remand
prisoner—he
ss
o nn presenteort
yeth e
aleena anbt
the case to next Thursday, when the police would
try and trace the party who took the goods away.

mARLBRO'-STREET.—(TRIS DAY.)
John Maynard and Thomas Fuller were put to the
bar, charged with stealing bricks.
Police constable 192 C said, while on duty this morn-
ing, about two o'clock, he found a pile of new bricks,
about thirty in number, in a court. After Passing rouud