The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-08 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

HUNT V. BARKLEY.
The plaintiff in this case was the second mate, and the
defendant was captain, of the ship Argo:. In 1831 the ves-
sel had sailed on a whaling expedition to the South Seas,
and an Agreement was entered into with the plaintiff, that
he, in common with the rest of the Crew, should be entitled
to a share in the proceeds of the expedition. On their arri-
val in the South Sea in April, plaintiff had been put ashore
by the captain at a place called Keemal, and there wilfully
abandoned by him without provisions of any sort, or any
means of obtaining his passage home to England. On his
return in 1832, plaintiff having in the meantime succeeded
in working his passage home as a common sailor, he brought
an action against the owner of the vessel, to recover his
wages and a share of the proceeds, which action, after many
delays, caused by the absence of material witnesses, was
decided in plaintiff's favour in 1831. Plaintiff afterwards
instituted proceedings against the present defendant to ob-
tain compensation for the injury inflicted upon him by his
abandonment at Keemal ; and a writ was served upon him
on board his vessel, then lying at Gravesend. They had
subsequently sailed again for the South Seas, and defendant's
attornies had obtained a rule before Mr. Justice Vaughan,
for twelve months' privilege to amend their plea, on the
ground that they had received no instructions from him
as to the course of defence they were to adopt.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD now moved for a rule to show
cause why this order should not. be rescinded.--Rule granted.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.

CRAWSHAY V. THORNTON.

This demurrer, which occupied the greater part of the
day, involved matters of great importance to the mercan-
tile world.

Mr. JACOB, in support of the demurrer of the defendant
Thornton to this interpleader bill, stated that the bill repre-
sented Crawshay and Co. to be iron merchants and wharf-
ingers, and owners of a bonded yard for foreign iron. In
1832, Messrs. W. and T. Raikes and Co. deposited with
them certain parcels of iron. In June, 1833, an order in
writing was brought to the depositories, signed by W. and
T. Raikes and Co. requiring them to weigh and deliver
these parcels of iron ; and a verbal message was left that
the same was intended for Mr. Thornton. Upon an appli-
cation being made for the iron one of the plaintiff's wrote
in pencil the name of Thornton before the parcels in their
books. About March, 1834, the defendant Thornton ap-
plied to them to know the particulars of the-iron, which
they held on his account. One of the firm called on
Richard Mee Raikes, who then carried on business under
the firm of W. and T. Raikes and Co., to ascertain whether
Thornton was the person entitled to the iron, and upon re-
ceiving an answer in the affirmative, he made an entry in
the books opposite to the parcels, " Bth March, 1834,
transferred to H. S. Thornton,' and the firm wrote a letter
to Mr. Thornton in these terms :

" March 8, 1834.

" Sir,—ln compliance with your request, we annex a note
of the landing weights of the various parcels of iron trans-
ferred into your name by Messrs. W. and T. Raikes and Co.,
and now held by us at your disposal. We are, Sir, &c.
" CRAWSHAY and CO."
In the course of some time after, Raikes became bankrupt,
and his assignees claimed no interest. But shortly after,
on the Bth of October, 1834, Crawshay and Co. received
a letter from Lemme and Co., informing them that the
whole of the iron was the property of Messrs. P. Daniloff
and A. Lubinoff, merchants at St. Petersburgh, and.that
W. and T. Raikes and Co. had been their agents for sale,
and had.no power to pledge ; that it was understood that
part of it had been pledged to Messrs. Labouchere and
Co. The letter then required them to treat such pledge as
a nullity, and to hold the iron for the original owners, whose
agents the writers were. Both Mr. Thornton and Messrs.
Daniloff and Co. subsequently demanded the iron, and had
commenced actions of trover against the plaintiffs, who
sought to make the parties interplead. An application had
been already made to Mr. Justice Bosanquet, in his
chamber, under the Interpleader Act. All the facts had
been stated, and all the cases upon this subject had been
cited before him, yet that Learned Judge refused to inter-
fere. And it was now submitted there was no ground for
interpleader in this case. The plaintiffs were mere agents,
holding goods for their principal. The Learned Counsel
cited all the cases upon this subject at great length.
Mr. KNIGHT, in support of the bill, said the case as set
up was, not that the deposit was wrong, but that the pledge,
after the deposit, was wrong. Messrs. Raikes and Co. did
an act, in depositing the iron in the bonded warehouse of
the plaintiffs, which did not of necessity imply that they
were principals. The act was consistent with their duty as
agents of Daniloff and Co. ; and the plaintiffs became
thereby in fact the 'agents of Daniloff and Co. Then oc-
curred the transaction with Thornton, which gave rise to the
present dispute. The right of Raikes to make the transfer
to him is disputed, which entitles the plaintiffs to call upon
the two parties to interplead. The Learned Counsel com-
mented on a variety of cases upon this subject at great
length.
His HONOUR observed, that as he would have an oppor-
tunity of consulting with Mr. Justice Bosanquet upon the
subject, he thought it but respectful to the Learned Judge
to inquire into the reasons of his opinion, after which he
would deliver judgment upon the demurrer.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.