The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-02 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.

SEALS. —Rehearings, Appeals, and Petitions before the
LORD CHANCELLOR after Michaelmas Term, 1833.
FIRST SEA L —Monday, Dec. 2,1; Tuesday, 3,1;
Wednesday 4th ; Thursday, sth ; rehearing and appeals.
SECOND SEAL—Friday, 6th ; Saturday, 7th ; Monday,
9th ; Tuesday, 10th ; rehearings and appeals.
THIRD SEAL—Wednesday, 11th; Thursday, 12th;
Friday, 13th ; Saturday, 14th ; rehearings and appeal..
FOURTH SEAL—Monday, 16th; Tuesday, 17th ;
Wednesday, 18th ; Thursday, 19th ; rehearings and ap-
peals.
FIFTH SEAL.—Friday, 20th; Saturday, 21st; petitions.
SEALS.—PIeas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Further Direc-
tions, Causes, and Petitions, before the VICE •CHAN•
CELLOR after Michaelmas Term, 1533.
FIRST SEAL—Monday, Dec. 2d; Tuesday, 3d; Wed•
nesday, 4th ; Thursday, sth ; pleas, demurrers, exceptions,
ftutber directions, arid causes.
SECOND SEA L. —Friday, 6th; Saturday, 7th; Monday,
9th ; Tuesday, 10th ; pleas, demurrers, exceptions, further
directions, and causes.
Titian SEAL—Wednesday, 11th ; Tbursdiy, 12.1) ;
Friday, 13th ; Siturday, 14 h ; pleas, demurrers, excep-
tions, further directions, and causes.
FOURTH SEAL.—Monday, 16th ; Tuesday, 17th ;
Wednesday, 18th ; Thursday, 19th ; pleas, demurrers,
exceptions, further directions, and causes.
FIFTH SEAL—Friday, 20th ; Saturday, 21st ;
peti-
tions.
In the interval between the last day of Michaelmas
Term and the First Seal the Vice Chancellor will sit at
Lincoln's Inn to hear motions,

Early last Sunday morning the farming pre-
mises of Robert Gamble, Esq., at Wortham, near Diss,
were set on fire by an incendiary, by which wicked act
four large sticks of wheat, barley, hay, and straw, were
before day entirely consumed, with the other contents of
the yard. Mr. Gamble is a magistrate of the county of
Suffolk, and universally esteemed for the benevolence of
his disposition and his unremitted charity to the poor and
distressed of every rhscription. e fire was first disco-
vered by Mr. Brigham, who so recently sustained a loss
by a similar conflagration at Wortham, as he was watch-
ing his own premises. The outbuildings were preserved
by the assistance of the engines from Diss. Mr. Gamble
at the time was confined to his bed by illness.—Norfolk
Chronicle.

COURT OP KING'S BENCH, Nov. 30.

HOUSE AGENCY.-HARSH V. BARNES AND ANOTHER,

This was an action to recover compensation for
work and labour as a house-agent. The plaintiff
was a person who carried on business in that cha-
racter ; the defendants were the executors of a Rev.
Mr. Viall. That gentleman was the owner of a
house in Brooke-street, and being desirous of dis-
posing of it he put it into the hands of a Mr. Rainy,
a house-agent, for that purpose. It remained for a
long time without being sold, when the plaintiff
being applied to by a gentleman, Sir W. Montague,
who was desirous of hiring such a house, sent down
his clerk to the residence of Mr. Viall, and asked to
know if he would let it. Mr. Viall was at first
reluctant to do so, but said that if he could not sell
it he should be glad to let it, although lie should
much prefer getting rid of it altogether. The clerk
then put into the hands of Mr. Viall a card of
the plaintiff's, and said that that card contained
the terms on which Mrs. Marsh transacted business.
Mr. Viall kept the card and put it in his pocket.
Some time afterwards Mrs. Marsh went down to Mr.
Viall's house, spoke to him of the previous interview
with the clerk, and put a card containing the terms
of doing business into his hands, on which he said
lie should be happy if he could let the house, told
him of the advantageous offer of Sir William Mon-
tague, who would give 4001. a year for the house,
and recommended him to let it to so good a tenant.
Mr. Viall consented to let the house, as he found
he could not sell it, but at first asked 4501. a year
rent ; and the house was subsequently let by a Mr.
Rainy to Sir W. Montague, though not at the rent
mentioned- by Mr. Viall. Now it was part of the
terms mentioned in the card that though the sale or
letting might not be effected in that office, provided
it was effected through the information obtained
their commission must be paid, and the commission
on letting an unfurnished house was stated to be
five per cent. on two years' rent. Under these
e'rcumstances, the house having been clearly let in
consequence of the introduction of Sir William
Montague to Mr. Rainy, the plaintiff claimed
compensation for his trouble, and claimed it under
the terms stated in the cards of business which had
been given Mr. Viall, arid after receiving which he
had consented to let the house to Sir William
Montague.
Sir J. SCARLETT for die defendants, said that
Mrs. Marsh was the real plaintiff; she was the
person who had transacted all the business, and who
now claimed payment for a journey which she her-
self had been pleased to take. He remembered a
story of an attorney who was said to have so sharp
an eye to business that if he only looked at a man
that man was happy to pay him ss. for a general
release. It was the same with Mrs. Marsh; if she
once came near any man with any one of her cards
of business his best course would be at once to pay
ss. for a general release. It was true that the de-
fendants had paid Si. into Court ; but that did not
admit the contract.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 301.; calculating the amount thus :
Five per cent. on the first year's rent, and 4 per
cent. on the second year's rent. From this sum the
sum of 51, paid was to be deducted, having the
gross verdict 251.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 30.

HEAD V. BANFIELD.

In this case, which was not concluded on Satur-
day when our Reporter quitted the Court, the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 10/.

HOADLEY V. 3IACLAINE.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for a breach of contract. 'ln May, 1831,
the defendant, Mr. Archibald Maclaine, had or-
dered the plaintiff, a coachmaker, to build a landau-
let for him, which was to cost 3301. Subsequently,
in the next April, he countermanded this order,
and directed a carriage to be built, but afterwards
changed his mind for the third time, and ordered
a landaulet to be built of peculiar elegance of
construction and finishing. '['here was no agree-
ment made as to the price of the new carriage; but
when it was finished, and the defendant was in-
formed that the extra charges brought the amount
up to 4861, he refu,ed to take the carriage. The
present action was in consequence brought. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.