The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-31 00:00:00

Liam Blanco and Hugh Pottinger, of Hartlepool ;
Henry Sutton -and Paul Calvert, of London; and
John H. Plummer (boy), of Sunderland. The
captain was much respected, and has left a family
of eight children. A tug steamer named the Robert
and Mary, belonging to Sunderland, is supposed to
have foundered with all hands on board during the
storm. She left Sunderland on Sunday night and
has not since been heard of. Every port along this
district of coast furnishes sad tidings of the severity
of the gale, and it is feared that the full extent of
the mischief is yet to be learned.
The Belgian steamer which arrived in the river
yesterday reports a frightful catastrophe on the
coast near Flushing, where a Dutch steamer bound
on an excursion from Rotterdam to Zwolle encoun-
tered the hurricane, and foundered with all on board
off a place called Moerdyk The number who
perished is stated to be about 80. Another steamer
was lost about the same time at Sehevening. She
was the Theresa, screw steamer, on a voyage from
Leith to Rotterdam, but no mention is made of her
crew. It is feared that from the severity of the
weather, other English vessels were wrecked on
that (Dutch) coast.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—May 30.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Erle,
and Justices Williams, Willes, and Byles.)
WOOD V. THE EPSOM AND LEATHERHEAD AND THE
WIMBLEDON AND DORKING RAILWAY COMPANIES
—LAND TAKEN FOR A RAILWAY.
The plaintiff in this case had held some land in
the parish of Epsom, which was taken by the Epsom
and Leatherhead Company, and afterwards used for
their purposes, and also for those of the Wimbledon.
and Dorking Company jointly. Under these cir-
cumstances the present action of ejectment was
commenced, it being contended that the first-named
company had, by their act, power only to take the
land for their own purposes, and not for the joint
purposes of their own and of another company.
The matter came before the Court upon a special
case.

The Court held that when the land was taken by
the Epsom and Leatherhead Company the title to it
passed out of the plaintiff, and, therefore, that he
had no right to maintain this action.
Judgment for the defendants.
YATES V. NASH-AN INFORMAL BILL OF EXCHANGE.
The question raised in this case, upon demurrer,
was whether a bill of exchange was in such a form
that it could be sued upon in a court of law. The
bill in question was drawn at nine months, and
made payable to " The Treasurer for the time being
of the Commercial Travellers' Benevolent Institu-
tion."

The Lord Chief Justice said, that although the
payee of a bill might be described by his christian
or surname, his office, or by any other description,
yet the bill would not be valid unless, at the time
of making it, the payee was a person capable of
being ascertained. A bill could not be drawn upon
a person who could be ascertained at a future time,
but not when the contract was entered into.
Judgment for the defendant.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Mr.
Justice Keating and a Common Jury.)
PAXON V. COURTNAY-UNDERTAKERS' CHARGES.
The plaintiff was a house agent and undertaker
at Hampstead, and the defendant, the Rev. Dr.
Courtnay, was the incumbent of St. James's, Pen-
tonville.
Dr. Courtenay had employed the plaintiff to bury
a lady named Mrs. Turner, who had left the Doc-
tor her executor, and the plaintiff now claimed the
amount of his bill, £94 35., and defendant paid
£75 into court in satisfaction of all demands.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and another learned gentle-
man appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin
James, Q, C., and Mr. Clerk for the defendant.
The plaintiff was called, and in his evidence he
said that when he first saw Dr. Courtenay upon the
matter he told him that the kind of funeral desired
wculd cost £5O or £6O, but witness at that time
believed that the interment would take place in the
neighbourhood of London. It subsequently turned
out that the lady was to be buried at Hatherley,
near Gloucester, and in consequence of this the
amount of his bill was increased to £94 3s. The
charges in his bill were reasonable.
Cross•examined by Mr. James—He had not been
called in until the lady was dead, but he had
charged £1 he paid to the nurse. (Laughter.) It
was a " compliment" which the Hampstead nurses
always expected, and therefore he had paid it. He
had no authority from Dr. Courtenay to make such
a payment. One item in his bill was "To cash
paid for two coachmen, eight bearers, two mutes,
two coach pages, and featherman, £7 17s. 6d."
Fifteen men were charged for, but thirteen only
were employed. Another item was, "To cash for
two black scarves, poles, and black silk covers for
the same, £3 35." He had these scarves back, so
that he charged £3 3s. for the use of the things.
The men were, however, at liberty to keep or re-
turn them. Another item was, "To cash paid for
15 black silk hatbands and 15 pairs of gloves for
mutes, bearers, pages, coachmen, and featherman,
£6 7s. 6d." He had the hatbands back, but the
men who wore them expected a compensation of
4s. each for giving them up. He had charged for
feathers and velvet for hearse and horses £4 4s.
The usual price was net,C2. There was also aguinea
for feathers and velvet for the mourning-coach.
Another item was, " To cash for silk scarf, two
black silk hatbands for self and assistant, and two
pairs of gloves, £3 18s." The assistant always
found his own hatband. . (Laughter.) He had
charged for his assistant attending £l. He was
one of the thirteen charged for, but then he was a
featherman. (A laugh.)
Mr. Justice Keating—So that you have charged
for him twice over.
Witness—Another item was " To fitting the
Rev. H. W. Maddey, rector of Hatherley with rich
silk scarf, hatband, and black kid gloves, £3 35."
He did not have this scarf back. It was a " com-
pliment" to the rev. gentleman for not charging his
interment fees. This was witness's usual charge.
He could not speak as to the usual charge in the
trade. He did not pay the clergyman his fees, but
he did not know that the clergyman afterwards
wrote to Dr. Courtenay for it and received a
guinea. It was the practice to charge more for
silk for the clergyman than for anyone else.
(A laugh.) This was not because it was more diffi-
cult to " fit" a clergyman. Mr. Foxwell, a hosier
and draper, at Gloucester, was paid by witness
£2 2s. for making " preparatory arrangements,"
that was for ordering the funeral. Mr. Foxwell
had demanded as much as £5 ss. Witness had
charged—as was usual-5 per cent. commission
on the p. ayments which he had made.
Another item was, " To fitting the clerk, the sex-
ton, and the bricklayer—(laughter)—with silk hat-
bands and gloves, £2 55." He did not get these
hatbands baat. He could not swear that the brick-
layer had the silk hatband and gloves charged for.
(Laughter.) Witness left them for him in the
church. (After some hesitation)—He could not
swear he left them. He could not swear that he
left any for the: sexton—he was hurried so to get
away. The claerk had on a hatband and gloves.
Mr. jetstice .4-Keating—ls it usual to make these
charges irithou t knowing whether the things are
supplied or not
Witness-31e left instructions, but he could not
say whether the parties got the things. It was
usual for him to charge for a hatband and gloves
for the bricklayer, but he could not say whether it
was usual in the trade. He had seen a bricklayer
wear the things.
Mr. James--. Wearing black gloves when open-
ing the vault 7 (Loud laughter.)
Withess—The practice was to open the vault
early in the ntorieing, and afterwards the bricklayer
attended in " full dress." (Laughter.) A working
man opened the vault, but the hatband and gloves
were for his master. Another item was, "To men's
and own expenses and use of room at the Bell
Hotel, Gloucester, £3 55." The hotel bill now in
court amounted only to 19a. 6d., but there was 3s.
more for the waiter and the ostler. The bill in-
cluded threebreakfasts, two dinners, sherry, brandy,
&e.

Mr. James—Showing, as somebody said the other
day, that undertakers men were more "liquids"
than " mutes." (Loud laughter.)
Witness--The 19s. 6d. charged in the bill had
reference only to himself and two men, but then the
other men expected their expenses, and he had
,-very reason to believe ho paid them. He would
not ,swear as to his paying those other men. The
silk scarves were very much spoilt by the wet, the
funeral taking place on a very wet day.
Mr. Carroll said he was in the service of Mr.
Butler, an undert‘aker in Farringdon-street, and he
spoke as to the fairness of some of the charges in
the plaintiff's bill.
Cross-examined—He was the only man who went
down from London Ivith the plaintiff, although two
were charged for. He supposed he was the
" assistant," and the " feafherman" too. (Laughter.)
It was possible that a scarf which had been got
back might be used 20 or 30 times afterwards.
. .

(t' laugh.)
Mr. Hawkino said he was cashier at Messrs.
Bantings, .an d Bpuße as to the reasonableness of
some of the char:es.
Cross-examined--For " fittini" a clergyman in
first-rate style, the charge Wu: £2 19s. The house
he came from would certainly „..-,t get the things
charged for back again. They migit..,t charge for
"fitting" a bricklayer in a first-class fui:_
eral, and
when the bricklayer was a "friend of the fanjiy."

(Loud laughter.)
Mr. James commented oeyerely upon the °nor-