The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-30 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 1

This Committee met at twelve o'clock, when the following Hon.
Members were present :—Mr. Strntt (chairman), Sir J. Y. Buller,
Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Beckett.
WEST RIDING 317NCTION.
The case for the opposition to this Bill was resumed on the meet-
ing of the Committee, and the allegations 01 the petition before
the Committee were proceeded with. On the case for the petitioner
being concluded, it was stated that there was another petition against
the Bill, but as its allegations wet e identical with those of the former
petition, it was not considered necessary to go into them.
The Committee decided that the standing orders were complied
with.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DA Y.)
(Before
Mr.
GARP V. PENTON.
Under-Sheriff BURCIIELL.)
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 10/. on a
bill of exchange.
AThe
witnessd e defendant da n
wast
called pleaded
who non-acceptance.
t h
e
defendant sign the bill.
He knew defendant by the name of George Penton. It was
signed, "George Penton!' The officer of the Court read
it " George A. Penton," which was said to be the right
initial, but in the declaration as "George N. Penton." The
witness knew defendant lived at the place where the writ
was served.
The UNDER-SHERIFF held this to be sufficient, but took a
note of the objection taken. He said that persons ought to
write their names very distinctly in such a case.
ELLIS V. ROSIER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was the
proprietor of the West India Club House, and the defendant
was one of the members of the Club, to recover the sum of
10/. 10s. for two
that he was not in yedebted.ars' subscription& The defendant pleaded
The facts of the case were these : the club was formed
in 1816, under a Committee of Management, of which the
Marquis of Chandos, the present Duke of Buckingham, was
a member; but, in 1834, a different arrangement was conic
to, and the plaintiff undertook the sole management of the
house, and to bear the expenses, receiving the subscriptions.
The defendant was admitted a member in 1838, and con-
tinued so up to January, 1843, when he discontinued attend-
ing but did not give notice, and the present action was
brought to recover the subscription for 1843 and 1844.
Mr. WILDE, for the defendant, said that the defence was
principally on the construction of the rules as to whether
notice was necessary—in the second place, that the plaintiff
sued as " Master" of the club—a description not proved
and, lastly, that the minute of the transfer of the property to
plaintiff ought to have been stamped ; but he was willing to
consent to a verdict for the plaintiff if he had leave to move
the Court above.

(Before a Special Jury.)
GIBSON V. BANBURY.
The plaintiff in this case is a shoemaker in London-wall;
the defendant is a solicitor. The action was brought to
recover the sum of 851. 10s., the value,of three scrip in the
Warwick and Worcester Railway.
Mr. V. LEE appeared for the plaintiff, and called
William Peake, who gave evidence that in December last

Defendant told him, he had bought three shares of the
plaintiff, hoping they would rise in the market, but they had
gone down to a mere nothing.
Cross-examined--Was only clerk for fourteen days. Had
previously been clerk to two or three other railways. Before
that had been a steward on board ship. Knew what a rail-
way stag was, but plaintiff was not one. He had laid out a
great deal of money in railway shares.
Mr. BALLANTINE (for the defendant) said he had no doubt
he should be able to convince them that of all the impudent
attempts which had ever been made, this was the worst.
Unfortunately, judgment had gone by default, through a
mistake, as the plea had been signed by a barrister, but as
the action had been brought in the Common Pleas, it ought
to have been signed by a sergeant. He should, however, put
in a cheque for the amount, drawn by the Commercial Bank
of London, " Pay four shares," and signed by defendant and his partner, and paid bearing the indorsement of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Wall, clerk to the Bank, proved payment of a cheque
on the 25th October, but could not say to whores it was paid.
Mr. Wright, partner to the defendant, cheque.
It had been given to Jones (witness's
cleprk)roved whothe brough:
the scrip examined. On his solemn oath he did not receive
any part of the produce of the cheque. Jones, however, paid
money to him that day on amour.% of another person. A
Judge had consented that tha plea might be put on, it
defendant lodged 100/. to abide the event of the trial, and
paid the costs of the judgment, but they deelined, as plain-
tiff was not worth a shilling.
Mr. LEE addressed the jury, contending that Jones ought
to have been called to show he had paid the money.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said Jones could have cleared up
the matter. The question was, bad the money been paid to
Gibson, whose name was Indorsed, or was it an attempt to
get paid twice over? If it was so, it was most monstrous
and wicked; but they did hear sometimes of these extraor-
dinary cases.—Verdict for 851. 10s.