The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-27 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 25.

PHILLIPS V. TIIORNTON AND WEST.
This was an action to recover compensation for
work and labour and services done and performed
by the plaintiff for and on behalf of the defendants.
The declaration also contained a count for money had
and received, and the sum claimed by the plaintiff
was upwards of 11,000/.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom were Mr.
FOLLETT and Mr. DEACON) stated the case for the
plaintiff, who for many years vevious to 1827 had
been master of the ship Margareita, and supercargo
of other vessels belonging to or chartered by the
defendants, who were well-known merchants re-
siding in London, and trading extensively to the
West and East Indies, and the Island of Java. In
1815 the defendants established a house in Batavia,
and in 1819 a brother of the defendant Thornton,
Mr. Robert Thornton, went out to manage the con-
cerns there. He was accompanied by his sister, Miss
Eliza Thornton. Mr. It. Thornton continued to
conduct the business in Batavia for three or four
years, when in the course of one of his coasting voy-
ages he unfortunately fell in with pirates, by whom
he was most cruelly murdered. After his death the
extensive concerns of the defendants in Java, were
conducted by Miss Eliza Thornton, an intelligent,
active, and extraordinary woman; and from the
correspondence which had taken place between her-
self and her brother, the defendant Mr.R. Thornton,
would show not only her competency to conduct
the concern, but also that her management was
highly approved of by the latter, who commended
her in the warmest terms, informing her that she had
the reputation of being a merchant of first-rare abi-
lities; and that in India she was regarded as a god-
dess. In one of his letters the defendant Thornton
had desired his sister to marry whenever she pleased,
and to set down 10,000/. of his money as her dower.
Miss Thornton continued in this way to conduct the
business from 1823 to 1827, having the commitl
la% er the charge of property to the amount of up-
wards of 300,000/. In 1827 the plaintiff arrived in
strongßatavia, as commander of one of the ships belonging
defendants,ecommeTdlaartridonbrfirnoginin
to his sister, in which he suggested the lttoete thrie of r
advan-
tages likely to accrue from the plaintiff remaining
out to manage the trading along the coast, and stated
bringing
the with
defendant him
a Thorn-
ton
the competency of the first officer of the ship which
the plaintiff-commanded to bring her home. The
plaintiff accordingly did remain, and on the 21st
August,lB27, married Miss Thornton, and continued
toyconductthe
trh ethel
abusinesstmteard
rria
imarriage
of
ot
leavingdefendantsiep laa with
int
ha man-
nermi
s in whichs
Thornton
so as to elicit their highest commendations. In
a
she appointed her husband and another gentleman
her executors, and the plaintiff continued in Java, con-
ducting the affairs of the defendants up to 1830, when
he came to England and solicited a settlement of his
claims on the defendants for the services he had
performed; but Mr. Richard Thornton refused to
come to any settlement, or to refer the claims of the
plaintiff to arbitration, and had thereby obliged the
plaintiff to bring the present action, by which he
sought to recover compensation on three points—
first, for his services prior to his marriage with Miss
Thornton—secondly, for his services during the con-
tinuance of the marriage; and lastly, for his services
after the death of his wife, for whose services before
her marriage, although of tile most valuable descrip-
tion, the plaintiff could not make any claim.
The services rendered by the plaintiff to the de-
fendants in various parts of India were proved by
severalnsovtii tsn
ce
os sr er
es s
pwolni o had trad d
ence
etw between
nw
Misshim, n
l Thornton
acnaeldlveedril and
Captains her
a p
brother,ptraoiln,es o
proved the
he
vessels
srseesles declarationsn
It
edefendant,rea is(o)of
examined,
e
defendant
nproved,daanndt
and read in evidence. The plaintiff's sister was also
Thornton, as to the value of the plaintiff's services.
Several
their evidence went to show the extent of the de-
fendant's business in Batavia; -and that the business
was entirely conducted by the plaintiff.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT, on behalf of the defendants,
commenced by stating that his client, Mr. Thornton,
disl not hesitate to admit openly by his Counsel that
which in one of his letters was stated, that he corn-
mencel his education in the lowest form of a Blue-
coat School, and after an apprenticeship at 51. a
year, was put forward in the world by the benefi-
cence of an uncle, and from a very humble begin-
ning had become one of the most eminent merchants
in the city of London, carrying on business and
trading to all parts of the world. That his sister had
done important services to the firm in Batavia he
was also ready to admit, but with these services it
was not for the Jury to deal, their duty being con-
fined to those rendered by the plaintiff, and which
had been rendered by him under a contract, which
the Counsel on the other side had not thought pro-
per to produce. The plaintiff had been engaged by
the defendants as master of the ship Margaretta, and
under the contract which he should produce was to
have 101. a month as Commander, and the same pay

to continue dining the period he might be engaged
on shore in India. Soon after the plaintiff's arrival
in India Miss Thornton made preparations for send-
ing to• the West coast of the island of Sumatra for
a cargo of pepper, and as she had been informed
by her brother's letter that the plaintiff was compe-
tant to act as supercargo as well as master, he was
engaged to conduct the vessel chartered for this
coasting voyage. When the preparations were com-
pleted the plaintiff demanded 200/. for the voyage,
in addition to his stipulated allowance, and refused
to undertake the voyap-e unless these terms were
complied with. Miss Thornton was, under existing
circumstances, induced to accede; and, being at
that time in a bad state of health, embarked on
hoard the same vessel, with the intention of pro-
ceeding as far as Padang'. On arriving at Padang
the plaintiff positively refused to proceed further on
the voyage unless Miss Thornton also proceeded
with him, and which she at last consented to do.
It was after this voyage, and on their return to Ba-
t 'via, that the marriage took place. To that mar-
riage the defendant, Mr. Thornton, had entertained
a most decided obj,cion. Nevertheless the plaintiff
had been fully paid, even beyond the terms of the
contract, anti was actually himself considerably in-
ch bted to the defendants. Commission was only
chargeable as between firms with distinct and sepa-
rate capitals, and never between the various branches ,
of the same firm.

Several witnesses were examined, and produced
a number of accounts, which went to show that the
plaintiff had been paid, and that he had never thought
of charging the defendants with commission until
his return to England.
The Jury, after an absence of about a quarter of
an hour, returned into Court with a verdict for the
plaintiff—l/images, 3,000/.
The verdict was received with strong marks of
approbation by a very crowded Court. The trial
occupied the entire day.