The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL.-WYTHES V. LABOUCHERE.

Mr. Itolt, Q.C., resumed his argument for the appellant,
in reply this morning, in this important part-heard appeal
cause, which has been already reported.
It will be remembered that this is an appeal from a de-
cision of Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, and the
contention is whether a bond granted to the Bank in secu-
rity for advances to be made to the late Mr. J. MacGregor,
M.P., for £30,000, is void, from want of valuable considera-
tion.

is expected the aguments will be concluded on Monday.

ROLLS COURT.
:Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

JUDGMENTS. -..MATTHEWS V. JOULE. -MATTHEWS V.

WYNNE.-IN RE TRAFFORD'S TRUSTS.

His Honour the Master.of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, said--. This is'a question on the construction of the
will of the late Edward Trafford, and the question is,
whether the shares bequeathed to the children of Sarah
Jones, his daughter, vested or were not vested on their
births, or were or were not vested on their attaining the
age of twenty-one, or on their marriage. The testator gave
£l5O to his wife, and directed his trustees to assign a divi-
dend of one-fourth share to his daughter, Sarah Jones, of
his separate estate without anticipation. And then he
directed that one-fourth part or share of the trust funds, or
dividends arising therefrom, should be given to either one
or more of the children of the said Sarah Jones, or their
children, 'on attaining twenty-one years of age, with
power of, appointment in the mother in favour of her chil-
dren before attaining the age of 21, and for educational
purposes. He considered, as the testator himself had used
the term " vested " in the ordinary and legal acceptation
in the bequests to his wife and daughter, that he had also
used it in the same manner in his bequests to the children
of his daughter. He made a declaration to the effect that
the shares of the daughter and her children vested on their
attaining the age of 21. He considered that this was a
proper suit to be brought into court, and that the costs of
all parties skould be paid out of the trust funds.
Counsel in the cause—Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C., Mr. Greene,
Q.C., and Mr. Selwyn, Q.C.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
TUCKER V. MAXWELL.
This was an action in which a question of some import-
ance to advertisers arose.

Mr. Huddleston, with Mr. Joyce, appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. T. Atkinson ap-
peared for the defendant.

Mr Huddleston, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
carried on business in John-street, Bedford-row, in con-
nection with the Metropolitan Advertising Company, and
was in the habit of purchasing the right of exhibiting large
boards in advantageous situations, which he let out to per-
sons anxious to advertise their commodities and goods for sale.
Mr. Tucker expended as much as £2,000 or £3,000 a-year in
such a manner. The defendant, Maxwell, was the proprietor
and publisher of a work called " Town Talk," and, being
anxious to avail himself of the facilities offered by Mr.
Tucker, wrote to him to ascertain the terms for exhibiting
placards announcing his publication. In the month of May
Maxwell made this application, and in a short time after-
wards an arrangement was entered into to exhibit the

" Town Talk" bills at all the stations. Shortly afterwards
a large quantity of immense show-boards, 7 feet 6 inches in
length and 3 feet 6 inches in breadth, were posted in a great
many positions in the metropolis. The contract was duly
performed by Mr. Tucker, and the present action was
brouglit to recover the amount due for three
montlt exhibition of placards. The placards were
exhibited from the 10th of July to the 10th of Oct. The
terms agreed upon were £35 per month for three months,
which would amount to £lO5. According to the custom of
the trade 10 per cent/ was allowed, making the amount £94

10s. A sum of £2O on account had been paid by Mr. Max-
well, and it was for the remaining amount the present
action was brought. _ _ .

Mr. George Tucker, the plaintiff, and his son, were
examined, and stated the exact nature of the contract
entered into with the defendant. By that agreement they
were to expose the large boards on all their stations, which
had duly been performed, and the defendant ha been driven
round the advertising district of the plaintiff in one of his
carts. The advertising circle extended from Bow to Fulham
and from Hampstead to Clapham Common. Mr. Maxwell
saw the boards were properly posted. One hundred and
twenty-eight stations were visited, and everything appeared
to be satisfactory. In cross-examination Mr. Tucker, jun.,
said the Metropolitan Permanent Advertising Company
was established in 1851. _ _ _

Mr. Justice Byles—Then it is not limited. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—Your father and yourself then comprised
the company ?

WitnCssLYes. (Laughter.)

Mr. Hawkins—Your father and you were the permanent
unlimited company ?

Witness—Yes. (Laughter.)

Mr. Hawkins—No one else was in it ?
Witness—No. (Laughter.) We traded under the name of
the Metropolitan Permanent Advertising Company. In
June the largest number of available stations was 140.
Mr. Hawkins—Were all these stations available ?
Witness—No ; we could not say they were all available,
because some of them were under the arches of the South-
Western Railway. (Laughter.)

Mr Hawkins—Where the bills cannot be seen ?
(Laughter.)
Witness—There was no great traffic. (Laughter.) We
were obliged to put them down as available to prevent bill-
stickers from encroaching. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—That board (pointing to a large poster in
a frame) was made to put up at one of the steam-boat
piers ?
Witness—Yes.

Mr. Hawkins—Did you ever put it up ?
Witness—No.
Mr. Hawkins—Did you have stations at all the other
bridges ?
Witness—No ; only at Hungerford and Battersea bridges•

I never told Mr. Maxwell wo had stations at all the other
piers. The agreement entered into with Mr. Maxwell was
£35 a month, but if it was continued over six months it
was to be £32. Mr. Maxwell never said he should consider
himself to be at liberty to terminate our agreement at any
time on giving a month's notice.
Mr. Huddleston—You pay large sums for particular
statiens

Witness—Yes; for the outside of one particular house
we pay £65 per annum. (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Byles—That's rent enough, I should think,
for the inside as well. (Laughter.)
The four men employed by the plaintiff to fix the defen-
dant's boards gave evidence accordingly.
A document sent to the plaintiff by the defendant, offer-
ing to settle the action for £4O, having been put in, the case
for the plaintiff closed.

Mr. Hawkins addressed the jury for the defendant, and
contended that ,the plaintiff had failed to perform his part
of the contract, as he had not exhibited the bills at all his
stations, and the offer of £4O to stay proceedings was made
merely to obviate the loss of time consequent upon the
trial of tho cause before a jury.

IThe jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £74 10s.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
SINGULAR AND IMPORTANT CASE.-PEARCE AND ANOTHER

V. PIPER.

This was an action to recover £5O commission for obtain-
ing defendant a partner with £l,OOO capital.
Mr. Beard appeared for plaintiff. Mr. Sharpe was counsel
for defendant.

Mr. Beard stated that in the month of August last a
Mr. Appleford called upon defendant (an old friend), and
asked him if he (Mr. Piper) had heard of his misfortune ?
Defendant replied that he had not. Mr. Appleford said,
" I have been bankrupt, and am now carrying on business
in the name of my brother-in-law, James Pearce, in Lom-
bard-street, as an accountant and agent." He then asked
defendant to distribute some cards for him, and handed
him some circulars. Defendant informed him that he was
looking out for a partner with capital, and plaintiff obtained
him one (a Mr. Dixon), and now sought to recover his
commission for so doing.

Plaintiff was called, and proved the above facts. He
was cross-examined by Mr. Sharpe at some length,
and stated that he had applied to both defendant
and Mr. Dixon for his commission. The usual charges
were 5 per cent. on the first £l,OOO, andi2l per cent. on each
£l,OOO above He carried on the business as Pearce and
Co. He was only two or three days about the business.
Mr. Sharpe then contended that plaintiff should be non-
suited, as suing in the name of Pearce and Co., when he
was de facto the plaintiff, and should sue as Appleford.
_ _ _

His Honour decided that he had acted in masa. He was
trading as Pearce and Co., and, by the permission and
consent of his brother-in-law, under his name. He was
responsible to Pearce, and could only sue in the name under
which he negotiated the business.

Mr. Sharpe then proceeded to show that plaintiff had no
claim upon defendant, and should rather look to Mr. Dixon.

Defendant was called. His evidence did not materially
affect that given by the plaintiff, except that he was com-
municating with him as Appleford.
Mr. Sharpe thenput it, whether if plaintiff had any claim,
he should not have sued both partners?

Mr: Beard pointed out that, by the County Court law,
plaintiff was permitted to sue one partner. He contended
that if ever a man was fairly entitled 'to a sum of money,
that manwas the plaintiff in the present case. By plaintiff's
exertions defendant had obtained a good partner, and it
was absurd to ignore the fact that plaintiff carried on the
business- as Pearce and Co. _ .

His Honour said that in this case plaintiff had elected to
sue Piper, and was allowed by the County Court law to do so.
He did not see that defendant had any reason to complain.
Plaintiff had evidently conducted this transaction not only
most efficiently, but most rapidly. Surely defendant would
not grumble because plaintiff had procured him what he
wanted in three days. Every one remembered the story
of the sailor who was charged a guinea by a famous London
dentist for the rapid and dexterous extraction of a tooth.