The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-14 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Campbell and Justices Crompton, Hill, and
Wightman.) •
SCULLY V. INGRAM.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., said in this case, which was tried at
Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice, at the sitting after
term, when a verdict of £3OO was found for the plaintiff, he
had to move, on the part of defendant, for a new trial, on
the ground of misdirection of the learned judge, that there
was no evidence of any damage naturally resulting to the
plaintiff by the representatien, that it was uncertain which
head the jury gave the damages, that the verdictveas against
the evidence, also as to damages, and finally on the ground of
surprise: He said:the action was brought by Mr. V. Scully
against Mr. Herbert Ingram, -M.P. for Boston, for frau-
dulently representing that he was the owner of the
Castle Hyde estate, in the county of Cork, whereby
the : plaintiff said he was prejudiced by being pre-
vented from enforcing the payment of £9,000 owing,
to him by the late John Sadleir, and by losing the ad-
vantages of the estate. ,At the trial there was little evi-
-1 dence.to show how. Mr. Ingram could have been benefitted.
by •the alleged misrepresentation, or what motive he. ould
have had in making it. The jury, .however, gave a verdict
for.the plaintiff with £3OO damages. They came into court
twice, and said that they could not agree ; and it
appeared that half, or a certain number of them, were
not prepared to find that the defendant was an accom-
plice with Saelleir in the fraud. The transaction
took place in 1853, and at the trial a •mass 'of corre-
spondence was produced by the plaintiff for the first thus,
of which the defendant was entirely ignorant, and that the
Lord Chief Justice kindly adjourned the cause early on the
first day, that he (Mr. Bo' ill)' might have an opportunity
of perusing it. Before the trial the defendant applied for
leave. "itoia ad)tiiitisfei Interrogatories to Mr. Scully,
whielC-araS ; and the defendant never received"
the -Mina notice to inspect and admit these letters,
which were for the first time brought to his notice at the
trial Since the trial the defendant has taken every
means in his power to obtain information as to the truth of
the evidence given at 'the trial. It appeared that Mr.
Scully was desirous that Mr. Ingram should have
every particle of information that existed in connee-

tion with the case, and a mass of papers had been
examined in which an entry had been discovered
in the books of Messrs. Morrogh and Kennedy, under the'
date of June 28,-- 1853, to the effect that they had received
instructions to prepare an outline of the Castle Hyde
estate, with a view to its sale to Mr. Dargan, and that there
had been an attendance upon Mr. Scully in respect thereof.
He contended that, as Mr. Ingram had abandoned the
purchase in May, 1853, and Mr. Scully in the June follow-
ing was dealing with :the estate-las his own, it was clear
that he was entitled to the rule on that ground alone. The
learned gentleman then went at length into a variety of
arguments. -

The Court granted a rule to show cause upon all points
except that of misdirection.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)

AUCTION SALES: IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.-HEMMINGS V.

ISAACS.

Mr. Beard applied for the plaintiff, an auctioneer, of Pil-
grim-street, Ludgate-hill, and who Ought to recover £l4
Bs. 6d. under the following circumstances :—Upon a certain
day plaintiff held a sale, at which 'defendant was a bidder.
'He bought'a lot or lots, consisting of two coats and 232
dozen dyed rabbit skins, which were knocked down to him
at £25 2s. 6d. He called and paid 6s. 6d. deposit, and asked
for time to clear his lots. A short time was granted, but
as defendant made no appearance notice was given to him
The lots were resold for £ls'odd, and plaintiff now sought
to recover from defendant the loss on the resale. One of the
conditions of the sale was that if the lots were not cleared by
a certain time they might, without notice, be again put up,
and the loss with all charges borne by the original buyer—
if there was any gain he would not participate in it.
Mr.-Beard called plaintiff an two witnesses, who proved
that defendant bade for the lots and paid 6s. 6d. Notice
was given to him that the goods would be resold.

On the part of the defendant, it was contended by Mr.
.Woollett that the 6s. 6d. was paid for two coats which he
took away. Defendant had no idea that the lot was 232
dozen of rabbit skins—he thought it was 32 dozen only.
Again he did not see how plaintiff could recover commission,
as defendant did not employ him to resell the goods.
Mr. Beard pointed out that the conditions of sale em-
powered plaintiff to make this charge.
Upon looking at the catalogue his Honour considered
that it was so.

After some conflicting evidence as to the quantity of
skins,
His Honour decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Catalogues were distributed at the sale, and defendant had
the opportunity of reading one, and he must be bound by
the conditions. It had been mentioned that these goods
were not included in the printed catalogue, but that was
nothing.

Verdict for plaintiff with costs.

COMMISSION, ON 8 HIPMENTS.--EMMANUEL V. 'ISAACS.

This was an action to recover' the sum of £l5 16s. 3d.
alleged to be charged in excess as commission upon some
,goods consigned to defendant's house at Melbourne.

A solicitor, who attended for plaintiff, stated that plain-
tiff and defendant's brother and partner had agreed that 5
per cent. commission should be charged upon the goods
consigned to Melbourne, but upon receiving the account
sales plaintiff found he had been charged 7f per cent. He
now sought to recover the excess.

Plaintiff was called, and proved the above statement.
Mr. Buchanan, for defendant, endeavoured to show that
no agreement was made as to commission, and he called
defendant, who swore to that part of the statement.

Mr. Buchanan—Besides the oath of my client, your
honour will see that it was very unlikely that my client
would have agreed to charge only 5 per cent., when they
knew nothing of the Australian trade.

• His Honour said plaintiff was very firm in his evidence,
and he should give him a verdict.

SINGULAR ACTION UPON .A
PROMISSORY NOTE.-RITCHIE

V. GRAY.

Mr. Beard appeared for the plaintiff, and sought to re-
cover the sum of £lO due upon a promissory note. It
appeared that the plaintiff had been tenant of a house upon
a lease, of which defendant was the freeholder. The sum
of £27 10s. had been given for the lease by defendant, of
which the promissory note in question formed a portion.
_ _ _

Mr. Woolett contended that the note had been obtained
by fraud. Plaintiff had stripped the house of all his goods,
and had stated to defendant that he had got as tenant to
come in, a Mr. Wilson ; but as. Mr. Beard elicited that de-
fendant himself had been making enquiries as to Mr.
Wilson,

His Honour gave plaintiff a verdict, with costs.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN Aus-
TRAMA AND NEW ZEALAND.—According to the advices
by the Australian mail, which has just arrived, there ap-
pears every probability that Australia and New Zealand
will shortly be united by a submarine cable. A survey has
been made, and the report is favourable. The length of the
cable will be about 1,350 miles, and the cast is estimated at
£lBO,OOO. It is expected, if there be any difficulty in the
way, that the sum will be raised in the city of Melbourne,
as the cable will be of incalculable use whdn the Australian
mails go via Panama, since the merchants of Melbourne will
be enabled to overtake the mail for. England at New. Zea-
land a week after it has left Melbourne, and receive infor-
mation from the mother country a week in advance of the
mail fOt AU.stralitt. ' '