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

estate was to be conveyed by the Encumbered
Estates Court in July, 1852, and. Sadleir proposed •
to the plaintiff that it should be conveyed to E.
Morrough, plaintiff's cousin, who was brother of
Mr. Morrough, a solicitor, who was Sadleir's part-
ner in the firm of Sadleir, Morrough, and Kennedy.
That was accordingly done, and the estate was in
July, 1852, conveyed, with Mr. Ayre's conmarrenee,
to Mr. E. Murrough. All that was done with the
plaintiff's knowledge. •
Lord Campbell said the plaintiff admitted he was
aware of that conveyance, and said it was conveyed
to Mr. Morrough as trustee for him (plaintiff).
Mr. Bovill said that plaintiff said he believed the
defendant had paid the whole of the purchase-
money, though he was found in July, 1852, privy to
its being conveyed to his cousin, his own nominee.
It was in Aug. or Sept., 1852, Sadleir told defen-
dant he had bought an estate in Ireland, called the
Castle Hyde estate, which would just suit defendant,
and he showed him a description of a beautiful
mansion, with a park and river likely to captivate
any gentleman who saw it. Sadleir offered it to the
defendant for £22,000 or £22,500, and told defen-
dant it was so good a property that he would not
allow him to refuse it. Sadleir afterwards told de-
fendant if anybody asked the price of the estate he
was to say £25,000. The plaintiff then applied to
defendant to purchase the estate, he having been
told in Feb., 1852, that he (defendant) was the
owner (though he was subsequently pressing Sadleir
for his money in order that he himself might have
it and pay for it), and in Feb. 1853, he (plaintiff)
said he went and saw the defendant on the subject.
About that time Sadleir had told the plaintiff the
defendant was willing to sell it, and had sent a me-
morandum on the subject, which, however, plaintiff
would not sign. The defendant denied that he had
anything to do with such memorandum, which he
had never seen, for it was entirely a fiction.
Lord Campbell here read the evidence given by
the plaintiff on this part of the case, and
Mr. Bovill readthe defendant's' ffidavit in expla-
nation. The only false representation alleged to
have been made by the defendant was that he had
said he was the owner of the estate, when Sadleir
had given him the option of becoming the purchaser
at £22,000 or £22,500, the defendant could not tell
which. In one sense he was the purchaser, though
he had not signed any contract, for he had the option.
Mr. Justice Hill—lt was only offered to the de-
fendant as a residence, not to sell again for his own
profit.
Lord Campbell said that according to the plain-
tiff's evidence, which his lordship read, the defend-
ant, at the Reform Club, had acted as owner, and
as competent to make what terms he pleased.
Mr. Bovill explained that it was not left to the
jury to say whether the defendant had represented
himself as the owner ; but it was assumed that the
representation made was false, because there was
no conveyance. In May, 1853, the defendant for
the first time went and saw the estate, and on the
advice of Mr. Powell, the surveyor to the Board of
Trade, who reported that the mansion would require
£lO,OOO to be laid out on repairs, he (defendant)
declined the purchase, and told Sadleir so. The
learned counsel then came to the question of sur-
prise, and read from a paper produced at the trial
an extract from the books of Messrs. Sadleir, Mor-
rough, and Kennedy, which ran as follows :-
-

"1853. June.—lnstructions to prepare outline of the
title to the estate comprising the manor and lands of Castle
Hyde, or Carrigeen, &c., to lay before Mr. Scully.

" Attending Mr. Scully therewith.
" 1853. June.—lnstructions for the deed of conveyance
from Mr. E. Morrogh, a trustee, to W. Dorgan, Esq., in
consideration of £25,000.

" Attending to Mr. Morrogh when he executed same.
" The arrangement being broken off, attending to came]
stamp."
- - - -

That extract showed that the plaintiff must have
known in June, 1853, that the defendant was not
the owner of the estate. After some further obser-
vations the learned counsel concluded by urging the
Court, upon the grounds stated, to grant the de-
fendant the rule now prayed.
Lord Campbell said the learned counsel might
take a rule to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside upon the grounds stated in the affi-
davits, that there had been no damage, and that the
jury had not distinguished on what ground they
had found the damages, and on the question whe-
ther either would support the damages, but not on
the ground of misdirection.
Mr. Bovill—And also on the ground that the
verdict was against the evidence ?
Mr. Justice Crompton—On all the points except
the misdirection, for it was quite clear there had
been no misdirection.—Rule nisi granted.