The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-15 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

A CURIOUS POINT.—In the Court of Common Pleas an
application was made for a rule nisi for a new trial in the
case of Brickman v. Chambers. The plaintiff had taken
shares in the General International Agency Company, and
he sued three of the directors to recover damages upon
the ground that he had been induced to take these shares
by a statement in a prospectus that applications had
already been received for upwards of one-half of the
25,000 shares which formed the first issue, and that this
statement was untrue. At the trial the jury found for
the plaintiff, and the motion on behalf of Captain Pelly,
one of the defendants, was for a rule for a new
trial upon the ground that the balance of evidence was in
favour of the captain's own testimony that he never saw
the statement complained of, and did not know of its
existence until after the action was brought. Mr. Justice
Wiles said that the court thought that the question was
one which was worthy of discussion, and there would
therefore be a rule.
BREAKING OFF NEGOTIATIONS FOR A PARTNERSHIP.—
Mr. Justice Smith and a common jury have been occupied
,
for two days in trying the case of • Wardle v. Black."
The plaintiff, a retired builder, had his attention some
time ago attracted to an advertisement for a partner with
£2,000 capital in the business of a West-end tailor. This
advertisement was inserted by the defendant, and when
the parties had been brought into communication a nego-
tiation for a partnership took place. The lawyer who was
to draw the partnership deed- died, and this caused some
delay. During the time that elapsed the plaintiff advanced
£255, and before any deed was signed he broke off the
affair, and declined to become a partner. He now sued to
recover the £255 as money lent, but the defence was that
the partnership had been orally agreed on, and that the
money advanced was part of the consideration for the
partnership. The jury found for the defendant.
MR. BOVILL'S PATENT AGAIN.—In the suit of Bovill
v. Hitchcock, which was an action relating to the well-
known patent of Mr. Bovill for improvements in the manu-
facture of flour, Lord Justice Cairns has refused an appli-
cation of the defendant made on appeal from the Master
of the Rolls, that the c:.se might be tried withthe assis-
tance of a jury. His lordship held that there was no
abstract rig!it to have a jury ; it was a matter for the
discretion of the court ; and he saw no reason for differing
from the Master of the Rolls.

'SM.-DING BAD MEAT TO MARKET.-Mr. Joseph Good.
land, of Marriott, in Somersetshire, was charged at the
Guildhall with sending to the London market meat which
was unfit for human food. It appeared that the defendant
had purchasad a lot of beasts at £8 a head, and another,
which was in bad condition, was thrown in to clinch the
ba,.gain. This make-weight was killed and sent to the
LoLdoo nr,rket. and was there condemned by the inspector.
Sir flobnt Carden said that as the animal was emaciated,
rather than dis3ased, he should inflict ouly the mitigated
pin.but
,- of 'IN with 42a. costs ; which, with tl:e expense
of co;;;;mf to London to answer the charge, made the de-
fendant's rather a bad bargain, and it is hoped will prove
a warning uot only to him, but to others.

AN i311'0!:1

Of:F.STION FOR :RAILWAY PASSENGERS.
(_'curt bas just had before it an

ivilester

brow_dit by one Mr. Clement Hall, against the
1;(1•Li1:11.: a Ild Yorlt,hircllaik ay Company to r eovcr
d:onp,:•es for false iirprisonintrit and assault, an 1 for
refitsing to grant a contract t:c!:et. The facts of the cage
were :;imply that the company neglected to renew Hall's
contract ticket for several days, and in the meantime Hall
travelled up and down the line with his old one. Upon one
°I these occasions the ticket collector at Miles Platting
refused to acknowledge the validity of the old ticket, and
toJk the plaintiff on to Manchester. In this consisted the
alleged assault and false imprisonment. The real question
at it!iue was—Are railway companies bound, as common
carriers, to issue contract tickets to any one who applies
for them, in the same way as they are bound to carry any
ono who tenders money for a single ticket? The company,
through their legal adviser
contended that they should
.i
have the power of -*
ttn, their discretion in such a
Mei JWI&Mot was reserved.