The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-17 00:00:00

APPEAL-SIMPPARD V. OXENPORD.

The Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the arguments
of the appellant's counsel in this case yesterday afternoon,
affirmed the decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page
Wood, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

ROLLS COURT:
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT.-ILACRET V. ALEXANDER.

His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, in delivering
judgment said, I am of opinion that the plaintiff has wholly
failed to make out his case. Taking the most favourable
view that I can take for the plaintiff, I am disposed
to agree with the contention and suppose that Mrs.
Sarah 'Alexander did give instructions for the prepara-
tion of the deed that was executed by her, as a
mortgage over her property at Fencham, Surrey, on
the 30th November, 18.57, for £5OO, and placed it
in the hands of her solicitor, Mr. Evans, as an eskcrow se-
curity for that amount to any person who might advance
the money. Yet she did not authorise Mr. Evans or his
clerk, Mr. Beattie, to borrow from the plaintiff £440, and
afterwards £75 on that security, and apply it in payment of
an account due by her to him. His Honour considered the
evidence given in the cause extremely contradictory, but it
appeared that the mortgage deed was not to be handed over
to the mortgagee until the money was paid to her, and as
the money was not paid to her the plaintiff was not entitled
to the mortgage security executed byher over her property.
His Honour dismissed the bill with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)

SMITH V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This case, which occupied the court until a late hour last
evening, was resumed this morning.
The plaintiff was a commercial traveller for the firm of
Serjeant, Webb, and Smith; drysalters of London, at a
salary of £l3O a-year, and a guinea a-day for expenses.
On the 13th of August last he w.ts a passenger by the Great
Northern down express train, which leaves King's-cross at
8 45 in the evening, and he was a severe sufferer by the
accident which happened about midnight, three-quarters
of a mile from the Coulton station. He was laid up for a
month at a village inn with concussion of the brain, con-
sequent upon a wound on the head, and medical men gave
it as their opinion that his general condition was
weakened, his health impaired, and his mental powers
diminished since his comparative recovery. The accident
arose from a fish train having sunk and come
to a standstill, in consequence of the ballast under the rails
being washed away by an unparalleled flood. The express
train, in which plaintiff was a passenger, dashed into the
trucks, the engine was thrown off the line, the carriages
were broken and upset, and the passengers thrown out,
some into a ditch up to their necks in water, and some into
an adjoining field. Many were the injuries received, and
this is only one of a
,series of actions which have been
brought against the company to recover compensation.
The case of " Maitland and Wife v. The Great Northern
Railway Company," which was tried in the Court of
Exchequer last week, was one of them, and the evidence
in this case was very nearly a repetition. The company
denied their liability, and attributed the accident to
the demolition of a bridge over the river Beck, which,
instead o damming back the water, as it had done
while it stood, released an immense body to swell and give
impetus to the collected waters near the line, about 3.1
miles distant It was proved beyond doubt that the bridge
gave way at half-past eleven, and that at ten minutes to
twelve, or about ten minutes before the accident, a heavy
train passed over the spot where the rails became displaced
in perfect safety. Scientific witnesses proved from meteo-
rological observations at East Retford and llighfield, near
Nottingham, that the rainfall was twice as much in an
hour and a-half on tha day of the accident as on an average
during the whole month of August.

Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and Mr. Badde-
ley appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Mr.
Phipson, Mr. It. Clarke, and Mr. Honeyman for the rail-
way company.

The jury had not returned their verdict when wo went
-0 press.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

:Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Wines and a
Special Jury.)

MARTIN AND OTHERS V. THE EASTERN STEAM NAVIGATION

COMPANY.

This was an action to recover the rent for the yard where
he Great Eastern was built, from Oct. 16, 1857, to March
l, 1858.

The plaintiffs are Messrs. Martin and Stone, the bankers.
The defendants are proprietors of the Great Eastern. The
action was brought to recover double value for six months'
holding over a portion of the land occupied by the Great
Eastern, OM to the difficulties met with in launching her.
The plaintiffs were the bankers of Mr. Scott Russell, and
at the time of his failure (he having previously made an
assignment to the defendants of the vessel, tools, &c.) they
had made large advances to him, and held as security on
mortgage his shipbuilding yard, upon part of which the
Great Eastern was built. After his failure his affairs were
wound-up under inspection, and the creditors, in February,
1856, agreed with the plaintiffs to pay them at the rate of
£lO,OOO a-year for 12 months. This rent was paid/or the
year which expired February, 1857, and then an arrange-
ment was made for the payMent of £2,500 for six months,
excluding certain parts of the premises. This rent was for
the freehold portions of the land, and was in addition to
rent for the leasehold portions, and also interest on a prior
mortgage ; rent was paid till August, 1857, and from that
time till the end of February the defendants, compelled by
the circumstances of the launch, were in possession of part
of the premises. The sum of £2,500 had been paid for the
rent for two months up to the 16:h of October, 1857. The
demand for possession was on the 20th of October, with
notice that double rent would be claimed. On the 20th of
November a writ of ejectment was issued. The vessel was
launched on the 31st of January, and on the 2d of February
judgment was signed in the. action of ejectment. In Fe-
bruary the possession was given up.
The question was as to the amount to be paid for the period
referred to. The plaintiffs claimed at the rate of MO,OOO a-
year from the 16th of October to the Ist of March. The
question was complicated by various considerations with re-
ference to the value of machinery, the interest to be paid on
mortgages, &c. The plant was stated to be worth £30,000,
the loose tools, &c., X 20,000, and the use of the whole went
with the premises. The negotiations were partly in con-
versation and partly in correspondence.

The contention on the part of the defendants was, that
the arrangement as to a rent of £lO,OOO had only been on
the understanding that the plaintiffs should not claim as
creditors, but should take their securities in satisfaction.
Another question was whether the plaintiffs could claim
anything for the tools ; and the defendants contended that
as the assignment to them was prior to the mortgage to the
plaintiffs, the claim as to the plant was very doubtful.
Much of it was upon land never mortgaged ; and it was
indeed stated that the greater part of the vessel was on land
not mortgaged, but the remainder overhung, and so con-
structively occupied, the land which was mortgaged to the
plaintiffs. The recovery in ejectment was likewise relied
on as inconsistent with a claim for rent.
The case was proceeding when we wont to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
IN RE GRANT.-SERIOUS CHARGES.

The bankrupt, who was described as of Cheapside, trunk
manufacturer, came up to pass his last examination.

Mr. Beard appeared for the bankrUpt, and said that the
examination had been adjourned from November for the
production of accounts, which unfortunately the bankrupt
had been unable to furnish; inasmuch as for 12 months of
the time over which the balance-sheet extended the bro-
ther of the bankrupt had carried on the business, the bank-
rupt having been in a situation ; the books had been so fin-
perfectly kept it was impossible for the bankrupt to furnish
complete accounts, he, therefore, suggested the bankrupt
should be allowed to pass, all questions as to conduct to be
reserved for the certificate meeting.

Mr. Dodd, for the assignees andcreditors, objected to any
further adjournment, except sine die. The case was one of
the grossest frauds that had ever come before the Court.
In' June last he had petitioned under the Private Arrange-
ment Act, and swore that he had assets, and made an offer
of payment of 20s. in the pound, by three quarterly in-
st,%lments, but before the first instalment was due (only a
few days), the whole of the property had been swept away,
besides which he had obtained goods from creditors without
anyreasonable means of payment. Therefore, he (Mr. Dodd)
had not only to ask for an adjournment sine die, but for an
order of the Court for the prosecution of the bankrupt.
Mr. Beard again urged that the object could be attained
by an adjournment to obtain the assistance of the brother to
endeavour to amend the accounts.

His Honour—But you say you cannot amend the ac-
counts, and therefore the case must be adjourned sine die.
Mr. Dodd—And your Honour will probably make an
order for a prosecution ?

Two creditors said that they were determined to prose
cute.

His Honour said the creditors must make out a ease be.
fore he could make any order on that point, and an exami.
nation upon the bill take place.
Mr. Beard applied for protection, which was refused.

We are happy to state that letters have been re-
ceived from the party of young Englishmen travelling to
the Red River Settlement, dated Fort Garry, October 28.
All were quite safe.