The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

MUCK V. GOMPERTZ.

This wns an action on a guarantee entered into by
the defendant, that two bills of exchange' accepted by
Mr. M. J. O'Connell, should be duly paid when due.
Mr. Welsby, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Pearce ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles was counsel for
the defendant. . _

The plaintiff stated that, in March last, the de-
fendant requested him to sell some wins to a friend of
his, Mr. M. J. O'Connell. Plaintiff agreed to do this
if defendant would guarantee the payment, and ac-
cordingly the defendant gave him the following un-
dertaking :—" In consideration of your handing me
two drafts on Mr. M. J. O'Connell for 2001. and 1501.
respectively, I undertake to get them accepted and to
see them paid." The bills were accepted, but not
paid by Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. KNOWLES objected that the document did not
disclose the whole consideration, and was, therefore,
invalid u❑der the Statute of Frauds.

His LORDSHIP having overruled the objection,
The COUNSEL for the defendant submitted to a ver.
diet for the full amount claimed.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 26.
(Errors from the Court of Queen's Bench, before Mr.
Baron PA.RILE, Mr. Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Justice
CRESSWELL, Mr. Baron PLATT, Mr. Justice WIL-
LIAMS, Mr. Justice TALFOURD, and Mr. Baron
MARTIN.)

HENDERSON V. EASON.

The question in this case was whether, where one
tenant in common, who has had the sole enjoyment of
the land, farmed it, and taken the produce, can be sued
in en action of account by his co-tenant, under the
statute 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 27, although it may be uncer-
tain whether the occupying party has received any
surplus profit.
The case was argued in the sittings in error after
Hilary term last.
Mr. Baron PARK: now delivered the judgment of
the Court, and said the declaration alleged that Ed-
ward Eason since dead, and whose executor Hender-
son the plaintiff in error is, and Robert Eason, were
tenants in common of certain lands and hereditaments
from November, 1833, to November, 1839, and
that the said Edward Eason in his lifetime had
the care and management of the whole of said mes-
suages, lands, and hereditaments, to receive and
take the rents, issues, and profits thereof, to the
common profit of Robert Eason and Edward Eason,
deceased, and as bailiff of Robert Eason, of what he
received more than his just share and proportion
thereof, to render a reasonable account thereof,
and his said share thereof when he should be required
so to do, according to the form of the statute, dec.
There was an averment that Edward Eason, deceased
had in his lifetime received more than his own just
share, to the amount of 2,000/., and that he did not
render a reasonable account thereof. And that since
his death Henderson, the executor, the plaintiff in
error, had not accounted. To this declaration there
were two pleas-Ist, denying that Ed ward Eason in
his lifetime had the care, &c., as bailiff, to render a
reasonable account thereof; 2d, denying that Edward
Eason received more than his due share, upon which
issue was joined. It appeared that the tenements and
lands consisted of a farm, and that Edward Eason, de-
ceased, was in the sole occupation and possession, and
cultivated end farmed the land, and appropriated the
whole of the profits to his own use. During the
whole time, the lands never were let to, or in the
possession of, any tenant paying rent, nor did he re-
ceive any rent, issues, or profits other than the pro-
fits and produce derived from the culture of the land.
The trial was had before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and
the question now arises upon his ruling to the jury.
There is no doubt as to the law before the statute of
Anne. Now, if one tenant in common occupies
the whole, there is no remedy unless he is
bailiff to his co-tenant in common. The
declaration is framed upon the statute. Now,
under the statute, he is bailiff only, as having received
more than his share, as is explained by Chief Justice
Willes, in Wheeler v. Horne, in Willes' Reports, p.
209. In the Act of Anne the receipt of issues and
profits is not mentioned, but only the receipt of more
than comes to his just share, that is, more than his
just share within the statute. The statute includes
all the rent received for both, and where one receives
the whole or more than his share, he becomes bailiff
for the other as to that excess. But it is difficult to
extend the statute beyond that. Thus, if two are
tenants in common of a room, and it is solely occu-
pied by one, and nothing is received, it would be hard
that the mere occupation is to be accounted for, and
that is not within the statute as was decided by Lord
Cottenham. Again, if one tenant in common occupies,
and expends money upon a farm, and it comes to
more than a fair rent, as if he cultivates hops, and he
takes the whole of the crops, he could not be called
upon by his co-tenants for an account of his profit
and losses. The risk is his own, and in taking all the
produce he cannot be said to be taking more than his
just share, for he only receives a return for his capital
and labour. Upon the whole, therefore, we think that
the direction of the Learned Judge, on the second
plea, was wrong, and that there must be a venire de
novo.

COURT OF INLAND REVENUE, Nov. 26.
(Before 11. F. STEPHENSON, Esq., C. J. HERRIES,
Esq., and A. MONTGOMERY, Esq.)
This Court resumed its sittings this day, after a pro-
tracted recess of nearly six months, to dispose of a
portion of a long list of cases in arrow..

CONVICTION OF A LICENSED VICTUALLER FOR THE
POSSESSION OF ADULTERATING MATERIALS,

Edward Vincent, of the Duchess of Kent, Deverell-
street, Dover-road, was charged with having in his
possession certain articles for the adulteration of
beer, and to be used as a substitute for malt and hops.
Mr. David Scott, a supervisor of Excise, said on
+Jr: 2(kh of April lab hu ,nt to pv, mins u! one
defendant, who carried on business in Deverell-street,
Dover-road. He was accompanied by Messrs. Elmy