The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-18 00:00:00

LAW INT

:This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Lord Camp•
bell and a Special Jury.)
BILLS V. SIIIIPHERD.

This was an action to recover 501., for money paid
and received, and on an account stated.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for 441. 2s.
10s., deducting 51.17 e. 2d., the actual cost in the civil
action.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
COTTRELL V. THE GREAT NORTEERN RAILWAY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff an exten-
sive dealer in valuable horses, to recover damages in
compensation for alleged injury to a valuable roan horse
through the negligence of the defendants servants. It
appeared from the plaintiff's case that he purchased the
horse in question on the 11th of June last, at Spalding,
which was taken on the 13th to the railway station, at
that place, to be forwarded to London by the Great
Northern Railway. The persons in charge of
the horse, however, directed the attention of the
defendants' porters to the careless manner in which
they were putting other horses into the box, as likely to
result in injury to the animals. They replied that the
plaintiffs' servants need not give them instructions, be-
cause they had " boxed" more horses than the others
had seen. The duty of putting horses into the hOrse-
boxes at the railway now devolves upon the porters of
the company ; and it was alleged that the injury arose
from the negligence of the defendants' porters in not
tying the horse's head sufficiently ,tight up to the
head of the box. The train started, and
upon arriving at Peterborough a violent kinking
and plunging was heard on the box, and on looking into
it the porter at that station found that if the train had
proceeded on to London with the horse in the state he
was discovered, he would, in all probability, have been
killed before arriving at the end of his destination. The
porter discovered that from the length of the halter the
horse bad been able to back on the starting of the train,
which was a usual circumstance, and required that a
horse's head should be tied np tight. The horse, from
being able to rear and plunge, had got his
off fore leg over one of the partitions of the
box, and the near fore leg what was termed
" over cast," that was over the halter. The horse
when taken out was found to be seriously injured ; be
was taken to Mr. Peroivali's, at Peterborough, where
he remained till the 15th of July. The horse was pur-
chased at 651, and was worth between 1301. to 1401. ; he
was sold to Sir C. Taylor for 1001., and a special war.
ranty that the injury in the fore leg, caused by the
accident, was not a "speedy out," the most dangerous
injury a horse could sustain. The action was to recover
471., the amount actually expended by the plaintiff on
the horse, the section of the Railway Traffio Act limit-
ing the amount of liability of the company under such
circumstances to 501.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and &Common Jury.)

GREGORY V. RIDDLE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
beer dealer, at Newport, against the defendant, who is

a brewer, at Bristol, to recover damages in consequence
of unsound beer supplied to the former, the complaint being
that it was not according to sample. The beer had
been paid for.
The question which arose was whether the bulk ought
to have corresponded exactly with the sample. Upon

this point the Loid Chief Baron laid it down that, in the
case of beer, it was not necessary that they should exactly
correspond, for while the sample might remain the same,
when tightly bottled up, the bulk might from various
causes undergo considerable deterioration. There were
some minor points of dispute which were of no im-

portance.
The jury retired and returned with a v•rd:et for the
plaintiff, damages 311. 17s. 61, subject to certain full
and empty hogsheads being returned.

THE LONDON AND EASTERN BANKING 00111PANY V.

J. B. STEPHENS.

This was an action arising ont of the transactions in
reference to the London and Eastern Banking Com-

....._ _
parry, which are now so weli known to the public by the
recent examination of Mr. Stephens in the Scotch Bank-

ruptcy Court. After the failure of the bank it appeared
from the opening statement of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, the Oriental Bank took, under certain condi•
tions, the business of the London and Eastern Bank, an
arrangement having been come to that the shareholders
in the latter should pay up the remainder of the calls
due on the shares. Under that agreement the defendant,
who was the holder of 172 shares, gave a promissory
note for 8,6001. to the Oriental Bank, the amount of the
remaining 0/. due on each share. Of the 172 shares,
150 of them belonged to a gentleman named Griffiths,
of whom the defendant purchased them for 6,0001..

drawing a cheque on the bank for that amount. The de:
fendant pleaded a variety of pleas, and amongst others
that the shares were purchased on account of the bank
to secure a certain gentleman being on the direction ;
and, furthermore, that ho bad given a bond for the
amount, which bond was for an illegal purpose.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Honey-
man were counsel for the
Mr. M. Smith, (1.0,, and Mr. Maud were counsel fur
the defendant.
Mr. Bovill called the folio wing witnesses :
George Clough said he was a clerk in the London and
Exeter Banking Corporation till May, 1857. Mr.
Stephens was manager of the bank and a director. He
had a drawing account there. Mr. Griffiths had also a
drawing account. The balance on Mr. Stephens'e
drawing account was 11/. 6s. 51. The last entry was
on the 11th of April.
The Lord Chief Baron—How came Stephens to cease
to be manager
Witness--I don't know. By resignation I suppose.
Eximination coutinued—This cheque (6,0001) was
given to him to enter in the journal to the debit of Mr.
Stephens and credit of Mr. Griffiths. Referring to the
deposit ledger he found this entry-1356, July 22,
120 shares London and Eastern Bank, purchased of
Mr. Griffiths, 6,000/. This was carried to Mr.
Stephens's floating account first, and then transferred
to the six per cent, share account. The signatures to
the various receipts to the cheques and dividend warrants
were in the handwriting of Mr. Stephens.
Cross-examined by Montague Smith—He did not keep
the ledger himself.
Mr. Smith—When that 6,0001. was carried to the
credit of Mr. Stephens in the share account, was there
a sum of 5,0001. to the credit of Mr. Stephens on the
current account ? Witness-4979/. 2w. 7d.
Mr. Smith—Were there similar accounts kept between
other directors ? Witness—l don't know of any other.
George Harrison said he was a clerk in the London
and Eastern Bank in 1857. He filled up a demand of
payment on Mr. Stephens.
The notice to produce this document was admitted by
the council for the defendant, but it was not forth
coming.

,„7.
" "'less—The amount claimed in that notice of
demand was 6,011/. 6s. sd. In March, 1857, Stephens
bhoeuldehlt72ofsAhiarr. Griffiths. es in the bank, including the 120 ehares
The promissory note given to
the Oriental Batik for the calla of 50 per cent, on the
shares was in Mr. Stephens' handwriting. He signed
it in witness's presence, The promissory note was for
8,6001.

Cross-examined by Mr. Smith—When he filled up the
notice he posted it to Mr. Stephens, at Gothic
Lodge, Twickenham. Mr. Stephens' bond was given
at the time the transfer of shares was made, but it
was not executed till September following. It was a
cash credit bond.
Mr. Smith—Do you know that the shares bought of
I don't. I know the contrary.
Smith—
Was this transfer approved of by the
Stephens were bought for the bank I
Witness—lt was approved of after the transfer was
entered. A regulation approving of it was passed on
GBroMNiaVffirridt.thnB of Directors ?
the and it was signed by Mr. Morris,
the
elotho chairman.fAg
Re-examined
g by Mr. Bovill—The bond was signed
by Mr. Stephens soon after the British Bank broke,
and Stephens directed witness to place it amongst his
private securities.
The bond was produced, and it was found that there
was no stamp or seal to it.
Mr. Bovill—As this is not a bond, we will call it the
cash credit paper.
The Lord Chief Baron—Yon may call it a bond just
as you call a thing a bad shilling. (Laughter.)
Mr. Smith contended that the plaintiff could not
bond,re-
although the defendant admitted it.
the firm in which it was given, was to
assure
balance on the account credit on which there
w o
The learned gentleman read the terms of the bond, which
e
s
was to cover any account current.
cT ha rbo no o
alun yd theli onldue
The other was a separate account.
The Lord Chief Baron said that all accounts were
covered.
Mr. Bovill said he feared that in his opening speech
he bad thrown more discredit on Col. Yates. That was
very far from his intention, as Col. Yates was a most
honourable man.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, for
6,0111. se.
Immediate execution was applied for.
The Lord Chief Baron—Certainly.
The Clerk—lmmediate, or in four days.
The Lord Chief Baron—lmmediate.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
THE HEMEL HEMPSTEAD BANS.--IN BE SMITH.

To-day was appointed by adjournment for considera•
tion of the certificate of this bankrupt, who had carried
on business in partnership with Edward Fearnley Whit-
tiogstall, deceased, as bankers at Hemel Hampstead and
Watford.
Mrs DagleY applied for the certificate which had been