The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-13 00:00:00

VICE CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VicE.Citaisrceu.oa took motions to-day.
SIR WILLIAM KEPPEL AND OTHERS V. HARFORD, BAILEY AND

OTHERS.

The Court was occupied the greater part of the morning
with the part-heard motion on behalf of the defendants in this
case, the object of which was to have the names struck out of
the record as plaintiffs to the bill. The plaintiffs and de-
fendants are shareholders in a railway in Monmouthshire,
called the Trevil Railroad. The defendants some time since
had erected a railway of their own, and discontinued to use the
Trevil Railway. The plaintiffs filed a bill for the purpose of
preventing the defendants using the railway they bad erected,
in which they made the defendants as shareholders co-plaintiffs.
On application to the Lord Chancellor in the long vacation his
Lordship granted an injunction, restraining the defendants
from making use of their railway, and a motion was now peed.
ing to dissolve that injunction. The only object, however, of
the present motion was, the removal from the record as plaintiff's
the names of the defendants.

His HONOUR, after hearing Counsel at considerable length
on the first day of term, and again today, dismissed the motion
with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,-(THIS DAY.)

Shortly after the sitting of the Court, the Master promul-
gated a series of new rules which had been agreed to by the
Judges of the Courts of King's Bench, Exchequer, and Com-
MOl4 Pleas, for the future guidance of practitioners.
The LORD C►ticy JUSTICE then observed that certain rules
had been drawn up by the Judges upon the subject of plead-
ing, but they could not yet be formally promulgated; they
would be so however during the Term. He then adverted to
a circumstance which the Court deprecated. A person named
Cooper had sent affidavits and letters to the Judges requesting
a new trial ; the Court could take no notice of such a mode
of application; if the party wished for a new trial he must
make it in the usual way.

FAWCETT V. CASH.
This was an action brought by a clerk against his master to
recover wages, upon a written agreement between them. It
was tried at Guildhall during the sittings after the last Term,
and a verdict found for the plaintiff; giving the defendant
leave to move topnter a nonsuit.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved to set the verdict
aside and to enter a nonsuit. He stated that the action was
a very.vexatious one, for a difference occurred between the par-
ties, who were Quakers, in January, 1833, and the plaintiff went
immediately and employed an attorney, but for which circum.
stance the matters in dispute might easily have been arranged.
The question was whether the action could be maintained in
the shape in which it had been brought. It was only on the
first count, which charged a contract of hiring for a year from
the sth of March, 1832. That contract was to this effect, that
the plaintiff should receive 121. 10s. per month for one year,
and afterwards to be increased until the salary should amount
to 180/. a year; the time it would take to reach the latter sum
would be four years. The Solicitor. General submitted that that
agreement did not bind the parties conditionally for a year,
because, if it did, it would equally bind them for four years.
It must mean that it should continue until reasonable notice
was given to either party. The dismissal took place within
the first year, viz., in January, 1833, up to which time the
wages were ',aid. If, as was the most probable, the hiring was
monthly, even then the plaintiff could not recover, because he
brought the action before a month's salary was due. The
Learned Counsel submitted that the first count, viz., the hiring
for one whole year, was not supported by the evidence and by
the contract.

Their LORDSHIPS delivered their judgments seriatim, and
expressed their opinion that the evidence did support the count
alleging the contract for one whole year, and that therefore the
verdict must stand.

CROOK V. JADIS.

Sir JAMES So, Run moved for a new trial or for a non-
suit in this case. It was an action brought by the
holder of a bill of exchange for 5001., drawn by the
defendant on, and accepted by the late Lord Foley. It
was alleged, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff
had given no consideration for the bill, and in answer thereto
evidence was adduced to show the consideration. In the
course of the evidence, it appeared that the only prosecution
for payment was made by the notary's clerk, who presented it
at Messrs. Drummond's, the bankers, after banking hours,
and when the clerks had left, viz., between six and seven
o'clock, and that the answer given by the clerk who was left
there to receive notaries, gave an answer "no orders." He
(Sir J. Scarlett) had objected to that presentment as not valid,
and the Lord Chief Justice took a note of the objection. He
now submitted, on the authority of the only cases he had
found bearing upon the question, that that presentment was
not a valid one. In the case of Bark v. Gordon, 7th East, p.
185, which was precisely in point, viz., the presentment of a
bill after banking hours, after the banking-house was shut up,
and when all the clerks had gone, Lord Ellenborough and
Judges Grose, Lawrence, and Le Blanc, nonsuited
the plaintiff: They held that a party was bound to present the
bill during business hours, and when there were persons ready
to pay, but that if it were not presented until after business
hours, and when it could not be paid, it would open a way for
a party to fish for the dishonour of a bill, to order to bring an
action upon it. A person was always left in the banking.house
after the business Wars, merely to give an answer to notaries,
but there was no person left to pay money. Sir James cited
other cases upon the same subject, and upon those authorities
he submitted that a presentment of a bill after banking hours
at the banking-house was not a rated presentment ; and that,
therefore, the plaintiff should be nonsuited.

Their LORDSHIPS thought the question one of very great
importance, and they would converse with some of the other
Judges before they delivered their judgment upon this point.
Sir JAMES SCA KLETT then took two other objections
to the verdict, which, he thought, entitled him to a new
trial. The first was, that the bill came into the plaintiff's hands
under ctcumstances of such sdspicion that he was not entitled
to sue upon it, the defendant not having received any consi-
deration for it. The second was, that the Lord Chief Justice
had laboured under some misapprehension in the mode in
which he left the case to the Jury, viz., whether it was proved

that the plaintitthad been guilty of grass negligence in taking
the bill in the way in which it appeared he did. The Learned
Counsel adverted to the evidence, bearing upon those two
points, and submitted that as regarded them he was entitled to
a new trial.

The.CoußT, as regarded the two latter points, refused the rule

COMMON PLEA S.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court sat this morning shortly after ten o'clock, when
the new rules adopted by the fifteen Judges of the three Courts
of Common Law, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniformity
of Process Act, were read by one of the Officers of the Court.
The CIIIEF JUSTICE communicated to the Bar that new rules
had been prepared and signed by the Judges, in conformity
with the provisions of an Act, passed in the last session of Par-
liament, for altering and amending the laws of pleading, but
that these rules would not be promulgated until they had been
first submitted to Parliament, after which they would come into
operation and full force at law.

ACEBAL V. LEVY.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the Judgment of the Court iii
this cause, discharging the rule nisi for a new trial, which had
been obtained and argued in the course of last Michaelmas term.

DEAN V. HOED.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages for an assault and battery. The
circumstances of the cast were as follow :—" The defendants
had.engaged the Adelaide steam packet for a trip to Richmond
and Twickenham, but the plaintiff and a friend bad been ad-
mitted on board as passengers by the Captain, and refused to
leave the vessel when desired by the defendant's party, and the
consequence was, the assault for which the present action was
brought, and for which the plaintiff had obtained a verdict,
damages, 101.
In the course of last Term a Rule nisi for a new trial had
been obtained by Sergeant SPANKIE, on behalf of the de-
fendants, on the ground that they had such a possession of
the vessel as to justify the removal, by force, of any
trespasser.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the plaintiff, showed cause against
the Rule in the course of last Term, and this morning
The Cu lEF JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the Court. The
question in this case was, whether the defendants had such a
possession of the vessel as to justify them in removing from it
the plaintiff by force. On looking at the terms of the letter
addressed by the owners of the vessel to the defendants, there
could be no doubt that the latter were entitled to the
possession and full enjoyment of the vessel free from the
intrusion of any stranger; and that if the Captain ad-
mitted, as be had done in this instance, a stranger, an action
would lie against the owners for a breach of contract, and
the defendants would be entitled to compensation in damages.
But, on looking at the whole of the facts in evidence, the
Court was of opinion there was not such a possession in the
defendants as to justify the removal of the plaintiff by force;
and the Court, therefore, would not disturb the verdict, which
in their judgment, met the justice of the case.
The COURT also gave judgment in several other cases, which,
however, were entirely destitute of public interest.