The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-29 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

Sitting* at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PL.wrr and a
Common Jury.)
BEA/1181i ro. OWNES.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover three
sums of 630/., 431. 10s., end 33/. 68., deposits paid on the sale
of an estate valued at 65,0001. The plaintiff was a gentleman
of fortune, and the defendant an attoro:7
wouLl_ appear, had
-
at-law, practising
_.
in Moorgate-street. The defendant,'
it
agreed with the plaintiff to sell him an estate, was
situated on the borders of Wales, for the sum Of 65,000/.,
the plaintiff paid him a deposit of one per cent. on the par-
chase
money, amounting to 6501., and 431. 10s. for the ex.
pense of surveying the property, which the defendant repre-
sented had been placed in his hands for disposal. This
agreement was made in March, and the defendant then under-
took to have a conveyance of the property, and all the neces-
sary deeds for transferring it to the plaintiff, prepared and
ready for execution on the 29th of the succeeding September.
In gay an abstract of title was forwarded to the plaintiff's
attorney, who never expressed his approbation or
disapprobation of its correctness, and the defendant
delayed the pi eparation of the conveyance till
four days before the appointed 29th of September, when
he received a letter from the plaintiff stating his readiness to
execute the deed and complete his part of the contract. It
had, however, become utterly impossible to have the deeds
prepared within the time specified in the agreement of sale;
and, on the 24th of October, the plaintiff brought the present
action to recover back the money he had paid as the deposit,
and for the surveys, as well as 33/. 65., the expenses the
plaintiff had been put to in the matter.
For the defence, it was urged that the plaintiff had not been
allowed sufficient time fur preparing the deeds ; but, even
suppoQing they had been ready by the 29th of September, the
plaintiff was not in a position to pay the balance of the pur-
chase-money. _ _ _ _ .

Mr. Baron PLATT, in his summing up, left it fur the jury
to say, firstly, whether the plaintiff had given sufficient time
for the fulfilment of the agreement, and secondly, whether or
not the plaintiff was in a position, on the 29th of September,
to pay the balance.
The jury, after a short consulation, returned a verdict in
favour of the plaintiff for the 650 L, but expressed it as their
opinion-that the defendant had not been allowed sufficient
time to execute the conveyance, and that the plaintiff, on
the 29th of September, was not in a condition to pay the
balance of the purchase-money.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
REGISTRATION APPEALS.
ALEXANDER V. NEWMAN.-lIIPORTANT DECISION.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE this morning delivered judgment
in this appeal against the Revising Barrister of the West
Riding of the County of York, who had decided that parties
joining together to purchase tenements for the object
of "multiplying voices," had acted in agreement
with the statutes therein made and provided; the purchase
and conveyance of the property on which the qualification
was sought being complete, the purchase money paid on it,
and all interest transferred from the seller to the purchaser,
objection was taken to such votes by the appellant, on the
interpretation of 3 Wm. 111., cap. 35, which, it was alleged,
made conveyancing for the object of multiplying voices null and
void. The Court was of opin ion that this act had only relation to
conveyances that were fraudulently made for the purpose
of multiplying voices, and where the sue and purchase of the
property were not bona fide and complete. The pre,ent case
was one of great importance, as its settlement would affect a
great number of cases, and the Court considered the statute
of William 111. did not apply to it. The provisions of that
statute only extended to fraudulent conveyances, and not to
conveyances that were bona fide and real. It had reference
alone to fictitious conveyances, and were a secret understanding
existed between the buyer and seller, where the interest in
the property did not pass fully from the one to the other.
The first question as to the validity of the conveyance arose
on the ground of common law. On this head the Court
was of opinion, according to common law, that any contract
entered into honestly and openly, and where the purchase of
the property was bona fk'e and complete, even though the
object of both buyer and idler was the avowed object of
multiplyingvoices, was good ; that the conveyance arising out
of such a purchase ought to be sustained ; and that it was only
where there existed a secret understanding, and where the sale
was merely nominal or fictitious, that the conveyance could
be declared void. His Lordship here referred to a case de-
cided by the late Lord Somers fifteen years before the pass-
ing of the Reform Bill, arisirg out of the splitting of
burgage tenures in the borough of Hazlemere. In that
case the voter were declared bad and void, because no
good consideration was given for the property which
was split for the purpose of multiplying votes. The practice,
founded on the common law, was to reject only such con-
veyances as were made without proper consideration, and
not where the contract was made honestly and the property
duly transferred in exchange for its fair value, the seller
giving up all further claim on the property, The statutory
law warranted the same construction. The statute of Wm.
111. fairly construed only bore against fictitious conveyances,
but, that were a purchase was real and bona fide,
the conveyance was not void, even although the object both
on the part of buyer and seller was for the purpose of multi-
plying voices at elections. There was nothing against buy-
ing land for the purpose of obtaining a vote. It was neither
malum in se, nor malum prohibitum. To hold such a view
would be to interfere with the fair and free interests and
rights of landed property, and it had been held as beneficial
to the constitution to increase the number of votes; the
effecting of which was the leading object of the late
Act of the Legislature for the extension of the franchise.
The interpretation the Court had given of the statute of
William HI. was borne out by a statute on the same subject
passed in the reign of Queen Anne, and also another enacted
in the reign of George 11. The Court, on these grounds, was
of opinion that all conveyances where money passes,
where there is no reservation, and where the transfer of in-
terest is complete—even though the object of both buyer and
seller was to make votes—are good, and therefore thinks that
the revising barrister, in keeping the name of the respondent
on the list, had acted right, and that his judgment be affirmed.
Their LORDSHIPS, on similar grounds, reversed a number
of decisions made against such votes by revising barristers
in other counties, and confirmed others, where the barrister
took the same view of the law as their Lordships.
This decisions set at rest all doubt as to the legality of the
new county votes, created under the auspices of the Anti-
Corn-law League.

MARLBR(Y-STREET.--(THIS DAY)

James Goodehild was brought up for further examination,
charged with stealing from the person of Mr. Richard
Betherall, of Gutter-lane, Cheapside, warehouseman, a gold
watch, of the value of thirty-five guineas, under the follow-
ing circumstances:—
About seven o'clock on Friday evening last the prosecutor
was standing in the crowd in the pit entrance of the St.
James's Theatre, waiting for the doors to open, when the pri-
soner pressed up against him without there being any occa-
sion for his doing so, and at thgt moment the prosecutor
hearing the clink, as he thought, of a pair of pincers, felt for
his watch, and missed it. He was confident of having it
safe in his possession a few seconds before—the ring of his
gold guard chain had been cut through with great nicety.
He immediately rushed to the door to prevent any one leav-
ing the passage, and also called for the police. Sergeant
Robert Beckerson, No. 4 of the A division, on duty at the
theatre, immediately came to his assistance, and the pri-
soner was given into custody. He was searched on the spot,
but the watch was not. found. The prosecutor feeling con-
vinced that the prisoner had robbed him, researched him
himself, and found something bulky between the lining of his
trowsers, at his ankle, and on it being cut it was discovered
to be the stolen watch.
The pritOger made no defence, and was fully committed
for trial.