The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-27 00:00:00

4AWINTELLIGENCZ--(THIS DAY.)

• • • ROLLS COURT.' •
• (Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

yi -LADE.

Plaintiff, by his solicitors, in Ciinterbury, sold by private
contract his estate, of Greaves, for £5,400,. subject to land
tax: ' • ..
Defendant signed the contract and paid a deposit of 5,546.
He now repudiates the contract and abatement on the
ground that he was only informed that tho land tax was MI;
whereas it turned out that the land-tiii was £l3, being a
land-tax at the rate of 2s. Bd. per pound on the value of the
estate.

Plaintiff filed his bill for specific performance of tho con-
tract, and alleged that his estate was sold by his solicitors,
Messrs. Hurley and Calloway, under the.express condition
that the estate was subject to land' tax; and that Mr.,Cal-
loway expressly informed him that he did net know the
anrount before the contract was signed.
The Maker of the Rolls was satisfied, upon looking at
the evidence produced, that the defendant was informed that
,the estate-in question was gold to him subject to payment
.of the land tax, and that the plaintiff's ag-ents gave him all
the information respecting the' land tax that they had
themselves: His Honour decreed specific performance
against the defendant, with costs.

S
• SE C(OriyoreAßMlrE.
•
ott rU, )R- T.
• "
INMA.N V. talltii`FlN.
This was an action to recover the sum of £l2 10a; Com•
niisvion, en obtaining a farme for defendant, in the ordinary
Iwo* of business. -
Mr. ClatlF,_of Bedford-row for the blaintiff, ,stated 'that
',thereafter Vas of great importance to laS'client, andwlts. as
-follcsa-s =Mr. Inman ia a 'farm and -estate agent,' and
-advertises Very largely. Some time age defendant appliqd
-to him fora farm of about 300 acres. Mr. Inman wrdte to
-defendant 'enclosing his terms,, 5 per cent. upon therentat,
-and enclosinralso a list of farms, amongst which was one
known as—Hollybush Farm. - Upon receiving this list,
-defesidant• had, entirely ignoring the plaintiff, personally
neptiatedwith the ownerof the farm, subsequently taking it.
But upon the-terms of the plaintiff this was guarded against,
and one of the clauses was,lhat any farm taken upon in-
formation •received from plaintiff would be chargeable 'in
reference to the taker in the same -rates commission. •- •
Plaintiff was called, and stated that delbtidant called upon
hinre,.and upon paying the correspondence fee, one guinea,
asked if the landlord of the farm would not pay half the
commission) and plaintiff said no: He was the -tenant's
agent. • • • .
Cress-examined—Plaintiff was mot authorised by, the
owner of the farm to advertise it •" To •be Let." It was
custotaaryto conduct business in this way._
Mr. Field, for the defendant, contended that the fee paid
by defendant was in fact all he was to pay. It had been
given in evidence that it was usual to charge one guinea
for correspondence fee, i.e. letters; &c., but in reality
that. sum was quite sufficient payment for the information
given by plaintiff. •
Defendant was called, and said that he -told plaintiff the
commission -was very extravagant, and he did not agree to
pay 4t.
Cross-exthined by Mr. Clark—Plaintiff told me he was
not employed by the owner of the farm. I might have li
read- the particulars contained in the plaintiff's terms:
-Mr. Marsh, the agricultural agent, was called, and his
evidence was in favour of neither party, inlact, he declared
he never knew such a case.
Mr. Field•then submitted there Was no contract to find for
defendant, imd Mr, Clark said it Was really an undefended
action. • •
!sto
The learned Secondary pped Mr. Clark, and told the
jury, it war so.
--The jury deliberated for 'a ,short time,
,and the learned
Se
la•
w.O
d Ir h'
for e ituhr); plaintiff.i.n ate
d
that
again
theya would beeglleaidnetodhte h
ultimately Mfor
Mr. Clark, .who then ad-
dressed them) and they

--.• • • •
PdiTti:INTELIGENCE.—(T.HIS DAY.)_

MARLBOROUGH-STREET:

.--OrerArsriste GOODS. ,WY Fit Ann, AND RECEiviNG.—
Pattibk Satttge, st. tailor, was Charged ,with obtaining, by
friudtilent Pittences, 104 yards of silk' serge, valued at
£18; the property of Megsrs: Miley and Co., drapers, &c.,
42,' WarNtieklstreet ; and SivantAital Bennett and Eve
Bennett, Polish Jews, of 11, Wcet-sheet,,Golden-square,
trimthing sailers, were charged with bing unlawfully pos-
gess4d of the same.
Mt: Ed'ad. Serbs, of Great 31er/borough-street, appeared
fo-fthtt prisoner's.
Wm. Pickman, in the employ of the prosecutors, said the
pristhier Savage came On Monday' tind asked for a piece of
silk Merge of above 100 yards in length, stating that it was
foi: Ml'. Gedgtegar, of Jernayn-street, and, knowing the pri-
ionet had bben in his employ, he let him have a piece of
108 yards, Of ,the value of £IB.
Sergeant Glass, 3 C, said he took'Savato into custody in
War Wick-attest on the previous evening, and, told him the
chirp. He said (speaking to Mr.lliley),"l hope you will
settle'this stithout•giving me into the custody of the police;
as I bbn tell you Where I sold it. •He (Glass)' then took,
him 'to the' station, where he told him he had sold it in
Vrest.:street,lo a man named Bennett, for £lO. • He gave
liia address'in earnaby-street, butidn going there found he
hid left that morning. From what Savage told him he
went to West-street, to the shop of Bennett, and asked if
he had purchased any silk of a manrwhich he denied'. He
told him a than was locked up, charged with obtaining some
by fraud. Bennett then 'spoke to a female in a lan,smage
ho did' not understand, and he (Sergeant' Glass) heard the
pjriVata door' shut, and on going out saw 'the female with a
puree/ running away, and; just as he came up to her, he saw
her place the parcel in a doorway. He afterwards admitted
giving £lO for it, but said ho had not entered it, as he kept
no books. • • • • •
• Mr. Lewis addressed the magistrate {Mr. Beadon) at
some leagth,.and in a very able manner, on behalf of the
Bennetts, and contended that the Bennetts had paid a fair
price for the goods. •
Remanded. •