The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Justices Crewmen, Williams,
and Crowder.)

READY V. GOLDSMITH.-SLANDER.

This was an action tried at the last Ipswich assizes
for slander. The plaintiff is a clothier and draper of
Sudbury, and the defendant is a clothier and shoemaker
of the same place, and the slander complained of was
that the defendant had said he had been informed by a
commercial traveller, who heard it at the Rose and
Crown, that there was a "screw loose" at the plaintiff's,
and that in consequence he should not call on him for
an order. The verdict was for the defendant. On the
motion of Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., on an early day of term,
a rule was granted by the Court for a new trial, and
to-day it came on for argument.

Mr. Prendergast, Q.C., appeared to support the rule,
and was about to enter on the case, when
Mr. O'Malley said he had no objection to consent to
a stet processus.

Mr. Prendergast accepted it, and the rule was dis-
charged.
Buie discharged.

MATHER AND ANOTHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE.

This was an action tried at the last Guildford Assizes
before the Lord Chief Baron, and was brought by the
plaintiff to recover of the defendant 1,0001. on a bill of
exchange, drawn by the Hon. F. Villiers, and accepted
by the defendant. The defense was that the bill was
given in error for a bill that was afterwards found to be
a forgery.

The facts of the case have repeatedly been before the
public.

Mr. James, Q.C., obtained a rule for a new trial at
the commencement of term, which today came on for
hearing.

Mr. Justice Crowder first read a copy of the notes
of the trial taken by the learned Chief Baron, and sup.
plied by bim, in which he stated that he told the jury
that the forgery was no defence to the present action on
this bill, if they believed the plaintiff -was the bona fide
holder of the bill, and to find a verdict for the defendant
if they believed he had been defrauded of the bill, and
that the plaintiff was not the bona fide holder of it for
value.

Mr. Justice Cresswell said that the application on
which the rule was granted stated that the Lord Chief
Baron bad misdirected the jury, in informing them that
to entitle the plaintiff to recover it must be proved that
he gave value for the forged bill, such question not being
in issue on the trial.

Mr. Lush said there was some mistake. He certainly
on the trial understood the Chief Baron's remarks to be
applied to the forged bill, and it was on that understand-
ing the motion for a new trial was made.

Mr. Justice Crowder said he thought it strange when
the application for a new trial was made to hear that
the Chief Baron had summed up as it was alleged. How
could the defendant be defrauded out of a forged bill ?
Mr. Justice Cress!vell said the Court could only be
guided by the notes supplied by the Chief Baron. There
appeared to be some mistake, and it probably would be
better to refer the case again to that learned judge.
Mr. Lush said he believed all the counsel in the case
took the summing up in the same view as he had stated.
Mr. Justice Cresswell applied to the plaintiff's counsel.
Mr. Roll, for the defendant, in answer to the appeal
of the second judge, read his note of the summing up,
which agreed with I. Lush's statement. He (Mr.
Holl) might, however, have mistaken the Chief Baron's
meaning.

Mr. Justice Cresswell—Probably so ; and as the
learned counsel had mistaken the Chief Baron's sum.
ming up it was not improbable the jury had done the
same. There could be no doubt but that the Chief Baron
meant what he had written down, and it would be
better to communicate with the Chief Baron before pro-
ceeding further.

The consideration of the application, therefore, awaits
a further communication with the Lord Chief Baron.

The Court of Queen's Bench was this morning occu•
pied with the Crown paper cases, but nothing of impor-
tance had oome on up to the time of our despatch
leaving.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

;Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Barons Bramwell and Watson.)

HAMLYN Y. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY-JUDGMENT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a master

tailor in London, against the defendants, for damages
for a breach of contract. The action was tried a few
weeks since before Mr. Baron Martin, when it was
shown that the plaintiff was induced by the defendant's
train bills to take a ticket from London to Hull. On
arriving at Great Grimsby, the London train being late,
the train in conjunction with the defendants, belonging
to another company, had left, and the plaintiff had no
means of getting from Great Grimsby to Hull that
night. On the following morning he proposed to go to
Hull with his London ticket, but the railway officials
at Great Grimsby would not allow him to proceed
unless he paid ls. 4d., the railway fare. He did so,
and proceeded on his journey, and the consequence
was that the delay prevented him from meeting his
customers, and he brought an action against the de-
fendants for damages. At the trial, Mr. Baron Mar-
tin told the jury that the plaintiff could only
recover for the actual damage he had shown he
had sustained, and not for general damages or inconve.
nience he might have sustained. The actual damage
shown was ls. 4d., the extra railway fare, and he advised
the jury not to give a verdict for more than ss. damages.
If the plaintiff had hired a chaise and posted on to Hull
the same night he could have recovered the amount from
the defendants.

Mr. Wilde, Q.C., afterwards moved for a rule calling
on the defendants to show cause why a new trial should
not be had in this case, o❑ the ground of misdirection on
the part of the learned lord who tried the case ; contend-
ing that the plaintiff was entitled to general damages for
the inconvenience and loss he had sustained by the delay,
and that should have been left to the jury.
The Court took time to consider the point, and to-day
delivered their judgment. The Court held that to recover
damages for a breach of contract of this kind the injury
must be appreciable and estimable, and not contingent,
as to inconvenience and annoyance. Considering the
learned baron who tried the case had acted right in di
recting the jury as he did, the Court refused the rule.
Rule refused,

CO URT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE TILLRY.

This bankrupt was described as of St. George's-wharf,
Camden-town, contractor, &c., and applied for his certi-
ficate on Monday last, the matter being argued by Mr.
Chidloy for the assignees, and Mr. Linklater for the
bankrupt.

His Honour now gave judgment, and suspended the
certificate for six months from the date of the last exa-
mination (15th Oct.), and then to be of the third class.
His Honour animadverted on the now common occur-
rence of not keeping a proper cas',l account, which was
particularly required by law ; the not-keeping of which
afforded great facilities for fraud. His Honour granted
protection for ten days, to enable the bankrupt to appeal,
if he th ought proper.