The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-04 00:00:00

LAW INTEL LIGENCE.—Th's ray.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.-In the Bail Court, Mr. Justice
Shee and a common jury were engaged in hearing the case
of South v. Wood. This was an action to recover damages
for an alleged breach of contract and of money paid, &c.
The defendant paid £25 into court as sufficient to meet the
plaintiff's demand. Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton
were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Huddlesten, Q.C.,
represented the defendant. Mr. Powell, in stating the
case to the jury, said the plaintiff was a farmer at Kid.
lington, in Oxfordshire, and the defendant described him-
self as a solicitor and a money-lender. The plaintiff
being in embarrassed circumstances in 1806, in con-
sequence of losses sustained by him from the
cattle disease, applied to the defendant for the loan
of £lOO in consNuence of the following advertisement
which appeared in the London papers :—" Money to lend
in town or country. From £lOO and upwards, for a term
of years, on personal security. Interest, 5 per cent.. Also
sums on mortgage of freehold or leasehold property at 3i
per cent. No commission charged. Apply to F. G.
Wood, Esq., late W. Wood, Esq., solicitor, 15, Dover-
place, S.E. Established 1829." The loan was not
forthcoming, although the plaintiff had paid the
necessary fees and charges, and he brought this action
for the loss he had sustained. The plaintiff charged the
defendant with having published a swindling advertise.
ment, by which means he had been induced to expend
certain sums of money and lose much time.—The plaintiff,
in his examination, said that after communicating with
the defendant by letter he called on him, and then he
was informed that he would have to give a personal bond
and insure his own life and that of his wife in the
.Albion. He did so, paying £6 13s. 9d. on his
own life and £2 12s. ld. on that of his wife. He
informed the defendant that he wanted the money with
which to purchase sheep. Defendant told plaintiff that
his client had left the money with him, and that as soon as
the business was arranged he could have the money im-
mediately, but that he would have to pay interest for the
money from the day it was lodged with him. He replied,
" Very well ; get the bond made out, and I will sign
it." Defendant said nothing about sureties, but he for-
warded, as well as the draft of the bond, a bill of sale and
forms for two sureties. He objected to the bill of sale, but
gave references. A demand was made upon him for
£3 10s. of law costs, which he paid. Finding there was
so much delay about the matter, he wrote tithe defendant,
saying he could then do without the money, and requesting
any balance that might be due to him returned. Not
being able to get any redress, he wrote to the defendant
again, threatening to put the matter into the hands of
a solicitor, and also to expose the matter ; to
which defendant replied, " You must pursue
what course you think proper." He had five or six inter-
views with the defendant ; the bond was never prepared.
When he asked for the money the defendant's answer was
" Give me the bond and send me the securities, and the
thing will be done at once."—ln cross-examina-
tion by Mr. Huddleston he said he had been
a farmer about three years ; before that he
was a book-deliverer for Messrs. Blackie. He had
not kept up the insurances. Witness was then examined
only as to the expenses he had been put to in coming to
London to see the defendant.—The defendant called no
witnesses, and the learned counsel on each side having
addressed the jury, a verdict for the plaintiff was re-
turned, giving him £lO over and above the sum paid into
court.

SEFARATION AND SETTLEMENT.—Tn the case of Prescott
v. Prescott, in the Court of Divorce, the wife had ob-
tained a decree nisi for a separation from her husband, but
the question as to the disposition of a portion of the re-
spondent's property for her benefit had been reserved. The
learned judge this morning gave his decision. He said that
the first point for consideration was the circumstance that
the court had made an order that the wife should have £l.
per week. It appeared that the respondent's income was £l5O
per annum, and at the time of the decree nisi being made he
assigned all that property to trustees, with th e understanding
that £9O of it should be employed in the education and
maintenance of his children. The children by the mar-
riage were four, the youngest of whom was born in 1863.
An application had been made that they should be de-
livered into the custody of the mother, and the court had
already ordered that the youngest one should be given up,
and he believed that it was now in the custody of the
mother, the court's injunction having been obeyed. The
court considered that the next child, a girl, ought also to
be given up, and the order would be accordingly. With
regard to the question of alimony, he thought that the
fairest way would be to allow the wife a third of the as-
signed property. If this injunction were complied with
:acre would be a decree absolute.

TIIE WAGES AND DISBURSEMENTS OF SHIPMASTERS.—
In the Admiralty Court, before Sir Robert Phillimore,
judgment was delivered hi the case of the Feronia, which
raised two important questions as to wages due to masters
of ships and disbursements made by them. The vessel had
been to China, and on her arrival at Liverpool this suit
was instituted by the master, and on the hearing was
referred to the registrar, who had found in favour of the
master, both for the wages and disbursements out of the
freight, the proceeds of which were in court. The mort-
gagee in possession objected to the report, and the case
was argued by Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Mr. Vernon
Lushington for the defendant, and by Mr. Aspinall,
Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Cohen), for the master.—
His Lordship, in giving judgment, reviewed the decisions
of his learned predecessor, Dr. Lushington, which were
entitled to the greatest respect. It was urged in this case
that as the master was a part owner he could not sue
himself on a contract, but the claim was not on a contract,
and a master, although part owner, was entitled to the
same protection as a common seaman. The learned
judge, after stating his reasons, allowed the disbursements.
He confirmed the registrar's report, but, in consequence of
the important question now decided, made no order as to
costs.—Judgment accordingly.