The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-27 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

Sittings at Nisi Prius.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took common jury causes this
morning, but those tried possessed nothing of general
interest.

In consequence of the non-attendance of witnesses in the
other causes on the list, the Court having no business to
proceed with, rose shortly after ten o'clock.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Sittings at Guildhall, be•ole the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Common Jury.)
MAUEE V. TLIOSIPSON.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stet, d the case for the plain-
iff. It was an action brought by the owner of a vessel.
called the Guardian, to recover 491. 15s. sd. from the
defendant, who was employed as his broker, under the
following circumstances :—The ship was employed in the
West India trade, and the defendant, as the 'wok. r,
bad to receive the freight, and hand it over to the
plaintiff, but in his account there was found a
deficiency of the sum that was now claimed by the
plaintiff. It was intended by the defence to prove that
the money now claimed was due to the defendant, as his
commission upon the freight. The defendant had ob-
tained a freight for the ship for two voyages to the West
Indies and hack in 1830, through the medium of Messrs.
Alves and Steele, who were brokers. The custom of the
trade would he proved to be 5 per cent, commission on an
outward and 2 per cent on the homeward voyage ; and
also that where two or more brokers were employed that
commission was to be divided between them, unless a
special a,_ireetnent was made to the contrary. These
commissions had been paid to the defendant, who, however,
had detained the further sum for which this action was
brought.
Witnesses were called to prove the statement of the
Learned Counsel.
Sir J. SCARLETT, for the defendant, contended that by
the custom of brokers his client was entitled to the
amount which be had detained, for there bad been no
special contract.
Several witnesses were called to depose to the practice
of the trade.
The case was not concluded when our reporter left.

SHERIFFS' COURT, MIDDLESEX.

(THIS DAY.)

FREEMAN V. ?AGANINI.

Mr. CHARLES PHILLIFS opened the case. The de-
fendant was the celebrated violinist, and the plaintiff was
employed as his secretary and assistant in his negotiations
with country managers, as well as in transacting his busi-
ness in town. He was extremely sorry that the defendant,
whose services in this country had been rewarded by a sum
of 30,0001., being at the rate of something like 2001. per
hour, should have dragged the plaintiff into a court of
justice to establish his claim to the paltry sum of 30/. I
for upwards of a month's services of the highest value to
the Signor. That something was owing to the plaintiff
even the defendant admitted, for he had allowed judgment
to go by default, and they were now met to assess the
value of the services rendered by the plaintiff to the defen-
/haat. The Learned Gentleman then entered into a state-
ment of the facts of the c Ise, .as they were afterwards
proved by the following witnesses :
Mr. Cooke examined.—ls Director of Music at
Drury Lane and Covent Garden Theatres. Retnem•
hers Paganini giving four concerts in July last, at
Drury Lane Theatre. Saw plaintiff occupied concerning
them, being the active person managing for Paganini. It
was necessary that he should be present at rehearsals, and
be was so, his proficiency in the French language render-
ing him useful. Mr. Freeman also prepared the pro-
gramme of the concerts. The preparations for the concerts
lasted a fortnight. Witness expects to lead at one
of Paganines approaching concerts, but notwithstanding
the', he should say that a guinea a day would be sufficient
on ordinary occasions for plaintiff's services ; but consider-
ing that the defend ant was a stranger, unacquainted with
the residences of the artists to be employed, &c., two
guineas per day would not be unreasonable. Mr. F. eeman
was perfectly competent to discharge the duty he undertook.
Cross-examined—Mr. Freeman had not, to witness'',
knowledge, been connected with the musical departm nt.
Mr. Fteeman is a law stationer. Witness saw Mr.
Freeman half a doz.n times during the fortnight above-
mentioned. He consulted him upon drawing up the
programmes. Ooe uninterrupted day would he sufficient
st,olfmapiceerfa porEaroegd,ramthmee,
peexrcfeoprmting ancweshatwllerle. Paganini
left to
Freeman's discretion. The skeleton programme was
made by Signior Paganini and Mr. Brown ; but
it was filled up by Mr. Freeman. He W 45 obliged to take
those who were willing to perform. They were unlike
ordinary concerts, there being a number of volunteer
singers. Witness was not himself aware of plaintiff doing
anything but assisting at programmes. He was on the
stage during rehearsals. During that fortnight, Mr.
Freeman's time was occupied three hours per day, to wit-
ness's knowledge. Any parson acquainted with the
French language would have done as well as the plaintiff.
Be-examined.—It was necessary for Paganini to have
some confidential person to refer to who could speak
French.

Mr. Charles Jones examined.—ls supervisor of cheeks
at the Theatres royal. Recollects the concerts given by
Paganini in July. It was his duty to deliver accounts of
the concerts to Mr. Bunn and Mr. Freeman. The first
account was not satisfactory, and plaintiff required, on the
part of defendant, an account of every person in every
part of the house, and whether they had psid or not.
Tois was made out, and was satisfactory. It was neces
sary that the person employed by Paganini should be a
trustworthy and honourable person, of some skill. Large
sums passed through his hands. Witness knew no one
but Mr. Freeman in his transactions with the defendant.

Cross-examined.—Mr. Freeman acted as interpret r
between witness and Paganini.
Mr. W. Wright-1s printer to Drury Lane Thea re.
Witness saw plaintiff almost every day during the concerts
in July. He received the MS. of programmes, Ste. from