The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec.lll

(Sittings at Nisi Prius in London, before the Loan
CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.)
MAYHEW V. PIPER.

This was an action of assumpsit brought to recover
37/. 10s., for a breach of contract, to which the defendant
hail pleaded, denying altogether his liability. The plain-
tiff, it would appear, had been employed by the defendant
as traveller; but a short time ago, , the defendant being
on the eve of bankruptcy, the defendant discharged the
plaintiff without paying him a quarter's salary or giving
him a quarter's notice, which it had been previously
agreed he should do before he could be at liberty to ter-
minate the engagement.
For the defence, it was urged by Mr. PETERSDORFF,
that the plaintiff on discovering that the defendant was
in pecuniary difficulties, solicited his discharge, and the
defendant knowing that there was a situation in Messrs.
Copeland and Company's establishment open to the
plaintiff, consented to put an end to the contract which
existed between them.
The LORD CHIEF BARON told the jury in his summing
up, that bankruptcy or insolvency was no answer to an
action for a servant's salary, and the only question they
had to consider was that of damages. The defendant
protested that he discharged the plaintiff for the advan-
tage of the plaintiff himself, but it was for
the jury to decide whether he had done so or
not. Generally speaking, it was to the disadvantage of
a person to be suddenly dismissed from his employment,
but it often happened that the disadvantage was much
less in one case than in another, and it was the amount
of disadvantage which had resulted to the plaintiff from
his discharge which must guide the jury in assessing his
damages. They were not bound to give him the whole
of the quarter's salary ; but, as the defendant had failed
to crake out his pleas, they must give him some da-
mages.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the full quarter's salary.
FRAZIER V. FOX.
This was an action of trover, brought to recover a Bible,
to which the defendant had pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Ihunfrey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Jervis for the defendant.
Mr. 11173IFREY stated the plaintiff's case. The plain-
tiff wee the agent of the London Gas-light and
Coke Company, and the defendant a retired licensed
victualler. The action was brought to recover possession
of a Bible, an article nr a curious nature, which was for-
merly the property of his late Royal hlighness the Duke
of Sussex. The jury would remember that his late
Royal Highness had a very large collection of Bibles in
possession at the time of his death, which were sub-
sequently sold by public auction, and various persons
heeeme the put chasers of them in the hope
arid expectation of making profit by them, and
amonest those purchasers was the plaintiff; who
le:tight one of the Bibles for nine or twelve guineas. His
Royal highness was late Greed Master of the head
lodge of Odd Fellows, and plaintiff purchased the Bible
in the hope of disposing of it to advantage to one of the 1
mieor beiges in town. The plaintiff and the defendant
at the time of the purchase were in flue habit, amongst
others of their friends, vr frequenting the Man-in-the-
. loom Teve-n, Vine street, Piccadilly, and in the course
of one of these visits the pleintiff mentioned the pratese
he lied made t the defendant, and the object he had in
view in making the purchase. The plaintiff, after exa-
mining the B'ble, which was one of the Oxford edition of
1841, slid }seinel and embellished in a most costly style,
eaal he belonged to an Odd Fellows' lodge, and promised,
if plaintiff' a ould entrust him with the Bible a short time,
he wonld endeavour to dispose of it for him. The plain-
tiff* immediately consented, and the Bible was handed
over to the defendant, but from that day to the present
the plaintiff Ind been unable to recover either the value
of the Bible or the Bible itself.
Evidence keying been adduced in support of this state
meet,
Mr. JEttvlai addressed the jury for the defendant. He
admitted
.that'the Bible was exhibited by the plaintiff at
the Man-ea the-Moon, but he should call a witness to
prove that his client left the tavern on the evening in
question in company
with the witness, who observed
tam he had no parcel or Bible in his possession. The
fact was,
however, that either the
plaintiff'
inadvertentlyor the de-
fendant left the Bible. at the Union, in
Air-street, Regent-street, and the landlord of that house,
who was a most respectable man, found it wrapped up
in brown paper upon his parlour table. In thecourse
of a conversation a tow days afterwards Mr. Fox
diselosed to the landlord of the Union, whose
name was Chapman, that the plaintiff had brought
an action against him to recover a Bible.
Mr. Chapman, upon hearing this, said, " Oh, I can stop
that action, for I have the Bible," and immediately sent
a mutual friend to the plaintiff to beg of him to stay all
legal proceedings, and send to the 'Union for his Bible,
but lie refused to do any thing of the sort, and the
astion was allowed to proceed to maturity. It was clear,
*her- r, ire, that tile defendant had keen guilty of no con-
version, and the verdict must be in favour of his client.
It mattered not whether the defendant or the plaintiff
left the Bible at the Union ; they were both in the habit
of frequenting the house, and it was just as likely that
the plaintiff' left it as the defendant ; but this he repeated,
mattered not ; the defendant having been guilty of no
conversion, was entitled to their verdict.
Witnesses were called to prove these facts. After
which

Mr. riumritr.v replied—There was no doubt that Mr.
Fox had been guilty of gross negligence in leaving the
Bible at the Union, and this fact alone entitled the plain-
tiff to recover. If it did not, and his Learned Friend's
argument were allowed to prevail, a man intrusted with
a large sum of money to pay a bill miht go into a
gambling-house, and lose it all, and wheng called upon
to restore it, he would he entitled to say, " Oh, I've lost
it ; but never mind, you will get it bye and bye. I have
been guilty though of no conversion, and you can't
recover against me. '
The Learned LORD CHIEF BARON said all the jury