The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-22 00:00:00

1847. 184 S. I 1819. I 1850.

9,897 8,282 I 26,243
4Ss Od 505 Od 383 9d to
to Os Od to 50s 6d Cs Od
736 I 1,219 1,322
75,251 ' 92,717 90,137

29,182
37s Od
to Os Od
1,570
Bi, 445

C:5 i! 1,902 269 89 !
74,523 92,890 108,847 90,157

50s Od 525 Od 413 01 335 Od

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lord Chareclier was u 111 ciently recovered from
his lute indisposition to be able to sit at his private
residence in Park-lane to day, to hear any cases that
might press. Although his Lordship's health is consi-
derably improved, it is generally understood thst he
will not be able to sit in open court before next term.

ROLLS' COURT.---(THIS DAY.)
iktitiuEs cf no general interet-t occupied the o.4urt the
whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor cf England was oc-
cupied the whole of the morning with hearing a ease in
his private room.
(Before the Vitu Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
The cause of " Herrison v. Armistead'' cecupied the
court the whole morning. It possessed no feature cf
any interest except to the parties concerned.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor \VIGRA-3.0
SHARPE V. TAYLOR.
The further arguments on this part-heard case occu-
pied the Court the whole day. The me came before
the Court upon exceptions to the Master's report,
whereby ho had found the value of a certain ship called
the Victoria, to have been, in May, 1840, 7,485/. The
exceptants insisted that her value was not more than
1,5001. 1,600/. It appeared the had been built in
Americs,, and hsvirg been wrecked off Liverpool, was
bought by the plaintiff and the defendant, who, having
repaired her, had employed her in the American trade.
The object of the bill was to obtain an account of the
profit, of the adventure, and of the amount reAised by
her fate.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Hislop Clarke were heard in sup
port of the exceptions.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Bethel!, and Mr. Follett,
were in support of the Master's finding.

QUEEN'S BENCH —(TIIIS DAY.)
Before Lord Chief Justice CAMPBELL and Justices
PATTESON, COLEBIP.GE, and WIGHT:BAY.)
LEFEYRE V. CHAPPEL.

Mr. Sergeant SIJEE said, in this ease, which was tiled
before Mr. Justice Coleridge at the last si!tings at
Guildhall, and in which a verdict was found for the de-
fendant, he had to move for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be had, on the ground of misdirec-
tion. The plaintiff, Mr. Left vre, was a commission
agent, residing at Boulogne, echo, having witnessed the
success of an opera called Le Prophete at Paris, and
hearing that the opera was about to be brought out in
London, was desirous of securing ail the boxes and stalls
of the Italia❑ Opera•hcuse, in Covent-garden, on the
night on which the opera was to be performed, with the
view of making a profit by the transaction. The plain-
tiff acccrdiogly wrote a letter to a person named
Merchant, in London, desiring him to see the mana-
ger of the Opera-house, and to engage all the
boxes and stalls that were in the market to that parti-
cular night. Merchant was caned as a witness at the
trill, who deposed that he went in company with a per-
son named Goldsmid, to the box-office of the Italian
Opera-house, where they met Mr. Chapped, the de-
fendant, who is a music•teller, in Regent•street, and a
subscriber for a number of the boxes and stalls at the
Opera-house. Seeing Mr. Chappel, Mr. Goldsmid en-
ter ed into conversation with him, and introduced Mr.
Marclwit to bin', who said to Mr. Chappel, " I be-
lieve I have the honour to speak to the manager of the
Opere." Mr. Chappel bowed his assent, whereupon Mr,
Merchant went on to may a friend cf his had authorised
him to buy all the stalls, boxes, and tickets, for the night
on which the opera in question was to be performed, so
that there might be no opposition or competition in the
sale of the boxes or stalls. Some days before
the bargain was completed the def.nclatit went
to the house of Merchant, a-id announced him-

self as the manager of the Opera, and represented
to Marchant that the Queen was expected to
attend the opera on the night when Le PropliZte was to
be played. It was after that representation that the
bargain was concluded. Now the ground on which he
(Mr. t'crgt ant Shee) moved was, that it was stated by
the Learned Judge (Coleridge) at the trial to the jury,
"that if the defendant did make the representation that
he was the manager of the Opera, the first question was
—was he not the zn::nager in the sense in which it was

material for him to be 1:0 for this contract?" New, the
fact was thbt the rlefendact wes not the manager at all.
fie was a person carrying on the business c f a music-

seller, and so far from- being the manager of the Opera,
lie was a competitor with the plaintiff in the sale of the
boxes and stalls, inasmuch as he had an office open in
Regent-street, fur disposing of box and stall tickets for
the opera for the very night in question. He (Mr.
Serge ant Shee) submitted that Mr. Uhappel, the (It fen-
dant, made a fraudulent representation to Marchant, the
agent, in this transaction.
Lord CAMPBELL inrimatrd that the Court would take
time to perube the notes of the trial, and give their
thcisiou on a future day.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Muni the LORD CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARE,
ROLFE, and PLATT.)
RENNIE AND ANOTHER V. CLARK.

Mr. DuVILL applied in this case, which was tried be
fore the Lord Chief Baron at Guildhall, and in which a
verdict was found for the defendant, for a rule to show
cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground
of misdirection, and of the verdict being against the
evidence. The action was brought by Sir John Rennie
and Mr. Remington, to recover 2,6001., the balance of
an account of 5,0001. for engineers' expenses in respect
of a projected undertaking, called the East and West
Junction Railway, which was proposed to run from
Kidderminster to Hereford. An action had been previ-
ously brought against one of the provisional committee,
but it failed, in consequence of the defendant's liability
not being proved; anti the present suit bad since been
instituted against Mr. Clark, who was deputy-chair-
man of the company. The jury, it appeared)
found a verdict for the defendant, but they ac-
companied it by an expression of an opinion that
they thought the plaintiffs were entitled to their claim,
although it did not seem to them that the defendant was
personally liable as a member of the committee. There
was distinct evidence at the trial, not only of the em-
ployment of the plaintiffs by the company, and of their
having applied for and received various sums on account,
but that the company had abundant thirds in hand to
pay the demand in lull. It would seem that as much as
19,0001. had been received in the shape of deposits, and
that 9000/. of it remained in possession of the banker
when the company was brought to an end. It further
appeared that the defendant was one of the directors
who had control over those funds; and he suggested,
when the caneern was braken up, that they should all
scramble fur the 9,000/. That course, however, did not
meet with approval, and it was ultimately agreed that
the sum should be handed over to another company, of
which the defendant weal a director. It was con-
tended, on the part of the plaintiffs, that the
defendant was liable, whether the company had funds
er not, but that he was, beyond all doubt
liable when there were ample funds in hand to meet
every claim against the company. The answer set up to
this by the defendant was, that the, plaintiffs were em-
pleyed cu the terms a being paid cut of the deposits,
if there were_. any, and that they had consented to indem-
nify the directors from all responsibility. The plaintiff,
denied that they were employed on :such an underAand-
jug; but a resointien of the committee was produced,
which directed that the usual bond of indemnity should
be obtained from the solicitors and engineers. The plain-
tiffs objected to its reception on the ground that it was
agreed to in the absence ?t Sir Johortßennie and Mr.
Remington, but the objectien was,overinled. An attempt
was then made to prove that tleo:tattritaybf the resolution
was communicated to the Ttldintlffs, but the evidence on
that point was of a
contraeledory nature. The Learned
Judi. e then lefs it
jury to say whether the
Veehe
defendant had ;,,;hicerppyiy. Cu the under-
sanding that he aid net net to be ...liable,but aas
to be indemnified, and also whether. the :pl.a.atifl:4
knew tl ey were to be erapJued:cn the faith ot.gying a
bond of indemnity. Mr.. now contended that
there was no proof of Any indemnity being agreed to by