The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-24 00:00:00

BURT V. ALLAN.

This case, which was before the Court upon bill and
supplemental bill, related to the settlement of partner-
ship accounts between the late Dr. Allan, High Beach,
Essex, and George Bury, surgeon, the plaintiff in the
cause. It appeared that early in the year 1842, the
plaintiff, Bury, and the late Dr. Allan entered into part-
nership in the management and proprietorship of an
establishment at High Beach for the cure of insane and
nervous persons, Bury agreeing to pay Dr. Allan the
sum of 2,5001. in consideration of the share he was to
have in the profits—one moiety, viz., 2501, to be paid on
the day of the commencement of tho partnership; the
other moiety within a specified time mentioned. The
partner3hip lasted uninterruptedly from February, 1842,
to July in the same year, when, in consequence of
an altercation between the parties, Dr. Allan excluded
the plaintiff from all management or concern
in the establishment. Up to that period the first moiety
of the sum had been paid by Bury; the other moiety has
never yet been paid. The original bill was filed in
1842, when an order of the Court was made, according
to which the Master appointed Dr. Allan to act as re-
ceiver or collector of the partnership debts. Subse-
quently, in the year 1843, Dr. Allan became bankrupt,
and the plaintiff thereupon filed a supplemental bill
against the assignees. For the defendants it had been
argued that the plaintiff had no claim to any of the part-
nership profits, and that he should be merely paid the
money he had advanced, and the interest thereon.
His Hosroua entered at length into a detail of the cir•
cumstances which led him to the conviction that Dr. Allan
was not justified in excluding the plaintiff, who had em
barked such a sum in the concern, from all share in the
partnership, and he therefore ordered the accounts to be
taken as between the assignees and the plaintiff, the
latter to be credited with the 2,5001. mentioned in the
agreement, and debited on the other hand with the
1,250/. unpaid. And, besides, with such a sum as bore
the same proportion to the whole 2,5001., as the time
from the commencement of the partnership to the Ist of
July, 1843, inclusive, bore to the term of fourteen years,
the intended duration of the partnership. Any questions
of interest, as well as of costs, between the plaintiff and
assignees to be reserved, and an arrangement to be made
to prevent any dividends being made in the bankruptcy
prejudicial to the plaintiff's rights.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 23.
The Court were engaged to-day in hearing arguments
upon a case relating to a Cornish mine, im which the
question to be determined referred to certain boundaries
and customs in Cornwall. The question, therefore, in.
vulved no general interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 22.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a
Common Jury.)
READING V. HOWORTH. . - .

This was an action on two bills of exchange for the
respective amounts of 161. 10s. and 5L ss.
'The defendant pleaded that she did not accept.
Mr. Petersdorff appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Piggott for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant is a very old lady, up-
wards of 80 years of age, and that some two years since
a person of the name of Symonds, the son of the de-
fendant by her first husband, took the bills in question to
the plaintiff to be discounted. This the plaintiff, after
having made inquiries as to the fact of the acceptances
being in the handwriting of the defendant, consented to
do, and eventually handed over the money for them.
The bills, however, on arriving at maturity, were not
duly honoured, and remained unsatisfied down to the
present moment. Hence the action.
A gentleman of the name of Sayer, who was the
managing clerk at a solicitor's in Bedford-row, was
called as a witness to prove the handwriting of the ac-
ceptances to be that of the defendant. He had seen her
sign her name to legal instruments. He entertained not
the least doubt of these acceptances being in her hand-
writing.
Mr. PIGGOTT, on behalf of the defendant, stated that
she was now upwards of eighty years of age, and was
not free from exhibiting the infirmness of a person who
had arrived at that advanced period of existence. That
lady most positively denied that she had ever accepted
these bills.-It was not a little singular that if the plaintiff
had really entertained an opinion, after their dishonour,
that they had been accepted by her, he should not have
taken any steps upon them for upwards of two years.
But such had been the fact ; and on the part of the lady
he was there that day, not simply to repeat her declara-
tion, but also to prove by evidence—evidence of a far
mere satisfactory and conclusive character than that
which had been offered on the other side—that the ac-
ceptance to these two bills was not in her handwriting.
Mr. R. Cooke was then examined.—He stated that
he was a conveyancer, and had known the defendant
for several years. She was eighty years of age, and
wrote a very feeble hand, a fact he was well acquainted
with, because he received her half-year's dividends,
for which she not only gave him her receipts, but
frequently wrote to him on the subject of them.
These acceptances, he should say, were not written
by the defendant. The writing was very much too
firm and bold for an old lady like her. She wrote her
name, as on the bills, at full length; but then her writing
was distinguished by great tremulousness. Were he to
receive instructions with such a boldness of signature, he
should not act upon them, because the writing was far
too firm and bold for a woman at her advanced age, and
most certainly for the defendant.
;,Cross-examined—He did not know were the defendant
lived at present. She usually called or wrote for her
dividends, and therefore, as he had no other transactions
with her, he had no occasion to know where she resided.
Mr. PETERMORFT---May I ask whether you did not
belong to another branch of the profession than that
which you have now stated? Witness—Yes; I was, and
am, I consider, a member of the bar.
Do you mean to say that you believe yourself to be a
member of the bar nowt—Yes, certainly.
Why, have you—l lament at being compelled to put
such a question—have you not been disbarred ?—Yes, I
have been disbarred, but only by the benchers, and an
appeal has been lodged against the decision of those
gentlemen.
What was it for ?—lt was in reference to a bill which
I had discounted, and the Benchers were of opinion that
too much interest had been taken upon it ; but I feel
that I have not done so, and that I stand before the
world as free from the imputation of any dishonourable
or improper action as any man possibly can be. The
Benchers, however, with respect to this particular trans-
action, appear to have entertained a different opinion ;
but my character is as unblemished as any character can
by possibility be. With regard to these bills I may be
allowed to state that I knew nothing about their exist-
ence until now.

Mr. PETERSDORFF having replied,
Mr. Baron ROLFE told the jury th© question was one
upon which they alone could decide. They would have
to say to which of the two witnesses they were inclined
to give the greater credence.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff:—
Damages, 241. 3s.
JANUARY 23.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DAVIS V. ANCRAIL
In this case Mr. Jervis had obtained a rule calling on
Mr. Moss, the plaintiff's attorney, to show cause why he
should not refund the sum of 5/. Is. paid to him for costs
on an untrue representation that judgment had been en-
tered up. The application, in the first instance, was
made before the Lord Chief Baron at chambers; but his
Lordship, on the ground that an important point of pro-
fessional practice was involved, intimated that it should
be heard before the full Court, in order that such notice
might be taken of the case as it seemed to demand. The
Learned Counsel now moved, on several affidavits, and,
among others, that of the defendant himself. In that
affidavit it was stated that the action was brought to re-
cover the sum of 41. ss. 6d. Notice of trial was given
on the 2d of August, but it was also countermanded, as
were also several subsequent ones. The action was at
length tried on the 3d of July, when the plaintiff ob-
tained a verdict for the sum of 11.73.6 d. The trial was,
however, set aside on the ground of irregularity, it being
stated that though the defendant had a good defence to
the action, it was unavailing on account of the vexatious
delays on the part of the plaintiff. Being unable to pay
8/. 15s. 6d., the amount incurred by costs and other-
wise, the defendant went to the plaintiff's atter-
Rey in December last, to request further time, which
the attorney at first refused, on account of the judgment
and execution having been signed, though he at length con-
sented to stay proceedings on payment of the debt,
costs, and further sums stated to be due, the whole
amount being 131. 16s. The defendant signed a memo-
randum making his goods liable to that extent. The
money was paid in due time, and proceedings were taken,
when it was perceived that judgment had not been
signed. The plaintiff's attorney then proposed to refer
the matter to a solicitor, and correspondence ensued.
Mr. CHAMBERS now showed cause, contending that
Mr. Moss had done all in his power to save expense,
and that all the outlay was occasioned by the defen-
dant's offering vexatious obstacles to the progress of the
proceedings.
Mr. JEavis, in reply, submitted that the rule should
be made absolute, as the affidavits of his Learned Friend
admitted the overcharge.—Rule absolute.
CHAPPELL V. PURDAY.
This case was argued last term, the suit being insti-
tuted for the alleged infringement of the copyright of
the opera of Fra Diavolo. The principal facts of the
case have already been laid before the public.
Counsel were heard last term in support of the rule
obtained by the defendant, either to have the verdict
entered for him on some of the issues, or to have a new
trial.
Mr. CROMPTON followed this morning on the same
side. The Learned Counsel said it seemed to be admit-
ted on all hands, that the music of Fru Diavolo was the
composition of Auber, and that it was assigned by him
to Latour, and published in France before it was pub-
lished in this country either by the plaintiff or the de-
fendant. The proposition which he was prepared to
maintain was, that this species of property could
not exist in any one, except an English
author of an Engligh work, or the assignee of
such author. The decision of the case must depend
either on the statutes relating to copyright, or on the