The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVEN IN Or, DECRMIIER 9, 185 6.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 8.

COURT OF CHANCERY'.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)

AITCHISON V. LEE.-IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

The arguments in this important case were further
proceeded with. To the attentive though stultified ears
of a densely crowded court, a sourt packed in every
corner by the anxious creditors and desponding share-
holders of the bank in question, the lingering measures,
long drawn out, of legal distinctions and professional
subtleties have been allowed to run through the better
part of five days. Where, upon a no very extensive
question, containing no greatly serious ramifications,
the Court has bad the advantage of being assisted by no
less than (seven counsel on one side, and has still to
attend to the remainder of a phalanx of five more on the
other, it is hardly to be expected that what Hamlet
terms " damnable iteration" should be avoided, and,
truth to say, if that iteration had been avoided the case
might have been compressed into a very reasonable
compass, and within such a period, as was thrown out
by authority during the argument, as within which there
were legitimate materials only for two days' argument.
Without disrespect to any of the learned counsel who
have been icstructed to appear, it may with truth be
said that, after the copious opening of the appeal, the
observations of juniors were no more than "ditto," or,
at any rate, " ditto, with variations ;" and with regard
to the respondents' case, after the leader's elaborate
opening, it partook of the same nature, though it is only
fair t~ say that on each side there was at least one cre-
ditable exception.

During this day's argument,
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said it would be well if the
professional gentlemen on both sides would agree to lay
down some scheme of proceeding to be adopted in case
this Court should annul the bankruptcy, and a scheme
of proceeding to be adopted in case this Court should,
on the other hand, support the bankruptcy. The ques-
tion of the validity of the bankruptcy must of necessity
be decided, that question being before this Court, which
it was not before the Vice-Chancellor. Some such ar-
rangement would be of great service to all parties, and
before the judgment should be delivered it was essential
that it should be come to, and each side bind itself to
abide by it.
Sir Fi'zroy Kelly, Mr. Glasse, Mr. Phipson, Mr. W.
Murray (both of the common law bar), and r. W. D.
Lewis, have already addressed the Court in support of
the appeal from the Vice-Chancellor's decision, and Mr.
Bacon and Mr. Huddleston (.cith Mr. Lewin) have ap-
peared in support of the appeal motion against the adju-
dication. Mr. Rolt, Mr. Joseph Browne, and Mr. G.
M. Giffard have been heard in support of the order of
the Vice-Chancellor, and Mr. Swanston, with Mr.
Bagley, have now been heard for the directors of the
bank in support of the adjudication in bankruptcy.
The only things which varied the weariful monotony
of the discussion were now and then au explosive rag.
gestion from one end of the " well" handed up to couu-
sel, which, when enunciated, caused a storm of indignant
denial from the troop of lawyers on the other side, and
now and then a woful strain of compassion for the cre-
ditors, met by declarations that but far the conduct of
the official assignee or the official manager, as the case
might be, those creditors would not be in a situation to
elicit any such expressions of commiseration.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly will reply to-morrow (this day.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in London, before Mr. Justice

Cresswell and a Common Jury,)

FRENCH T. STYRING-HORSE-RACING TRANSACTIONS.

This was an action to recover various sums of money,
claimed to be due to tke plaintiff in respect of horse-
racing transactions between him and the defendant.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Atherton and Mr. Manisty for the
defendant.

The plaintiff was a trainer of horses at Newmarket,
and the defendant was a publican at Huddersfield. It
appeared that in the spring of 1854 a horse named Cen-
sus had won three races at Warwick, and also one at
Northampton. The last was a selling race, and accord-
ing to the terms of it Cansus was sold by auction, the
price obtained being 250 guineas. It was arranged that
the plaintiff and defendant should own the horse in equal
moieles, and enother.part of the arrangement was that
291., then due to the plaintiff for training the horse,
should be paid by the defendant. After that expenses
ware incurred, in respect of Census, to such an amount
that the defendant's half would be 1761. Another part
of the case related to a horse named Autocrat, which
was a favourite for the Derby in 1854, and the plaintiff,
at the defendant's request, backed Autocrat for 1001.,
which the plaintiff subsequently paid ; and there was
another bet of 251. under similar circumstances. The
plaintiff now sought to recover the 291. and the 1761.
for expenses in connection with Census, and 1251. for
the bets. The plaintiff and other persons were called to
prove these facts.
Evidence was also given for the defendant, and the
defence set up was, that the plaintiff and defendant were
partners in reference to Census, and that a suit at law
could not be maintained in reference to the partnership
transaction. As to the 1001. bet, it was said that the
plaintiff had not complied with the defendant's direc-
tion to send him word the next day that he had made
the bet, and also that he had disobeyed his instructions,
by taking 3to 1 instead of 3,i to 1. •
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 2651. 11s.
10d., subject to the opinion of the Coart with respect to
the question as to the partnership.