The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-26 00:00:00

vanced to O'Neal by the defendant. At the conclusion of the
defendant's case, at the suggestion of the Learned Judge, the
case was referred.

HARRIS V. HOWARD.

This was an action virtually to compel the defendant to
deliver up certain prints, drawings, plates and other matters,
to which the plaintiff laid claim as being his property.
Mr. Kelly, with whom was Sir John Bayley, conducted
the case for the plaintiff, whilst Mr. B. Andrews and Mr.
Ogle appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff is Major
Harris, to whom the world is indebted for a most admirable
work, entitled " Wild Sports of Africa," and the defendant
is Mr. Frank Howard, the artist. It appeared that the
plaintiff, whilst in Southern Africa, being anxious to publish
the work of which mention has been made, commissioned a
Miss Cornwallis in this country to make arrangements with
an artist to accomplish that object. The gentleman to whom
the lady was recommended turned out to be the defendant,
with whom she entered into an agreement, by which
he was to be paid fifteen guineas for each of
twenty:eight coloured plates, and five guineas each for the
" tail pieces" and vignettes. Subsequently to this a second
agreement was arranged for a second work, to which he was
to supply twenty plates, at the rate of five guineas per plate.
This sum, it was stated by the Learned Counsel, was far
more than one of the most able artists of the day would have
charged. The defendant furthermore undertook to correct
the letter-press portion of the publication, and to act some-
what in the capacity of its publisher, having promised to for-
ward copies thereof to the different subscribers in India. In
the course of time defendant was paid 1,9001. on account of the
first work, and 5001. for the second, and there now re-
mained only 891. odd due to him. The balance had been
tendered, but the defendant refused to accept it, and
to deliver up the plates, printing, &c., &c., unless he
were paid 500 L as his commission upon the transaction.
This claim the plaintiff declined to acknowledge, on the
ground that there had never been any agreement wherein
such a thing as commission had been even hinted at. In the
course of the statement of Counsel it appeared that, notwith-
standing so large a sum had been handed over to the de-
fendant, he had failed in applying it to its proper purpose,
and that several of the parties who had been occupied under
him upon the work, retained certain parts in, their possession
until their claims had been satisfied. _

Evenivalli, as in the preceding cause, the case was referred.
The jury, therefore, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, sabject
to a reference ; the defendant, in the meantime, upon secu-
rity being given, to deliver up those portions of the work
that were in his possession, and to give orders for the deli-
very of the rest by the different tradespeople.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 24.

(Sittings in London before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a
Special Jury.)
PHILLIPS V. IRVINE.

This was an action of assumpsit upon a policy of insurance,
brought against the defendants as directors of an insurance
company.
The vessel upon which the policy was effected was bound
on a voyage from London to Bombay, or China. She was
examined previous to her departure from this port, and was
considered sound, but a short time before her amval at the
port of destination the " cheeks" of her mainmast were found
defective. She underwent repairs in her Majesty's Dockyard
at Bombay, and was then detained there for several months,
not being able to procure a remunerating freightage home.
She at started on her homeward voyage, but she was
found still to be unsound, and her captain put into the Mauri-
tius. It was there ascertained that the necessary repairs
would have cost 7001. or 8001., and this being more than the
vessel was worth, she was abandoned as for a total loss, and
sold.

The pleas put in on behalf of the insurers were—unsea-
worthiness, a concealment of rotten timbers, a deviation
founded on her long stoppage at Bombay, "and an improper
sale.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, however,
Sergeant CHANNELL, for the defendants, admitted that the
verdict must be against him on three of the pleas, and as to
the stoppage at Bombay, he should propose that the ques-
tion, being one both of law and fact, it should be reserved
for the Court. He should then contend that the stoppage for
the purpose of obtaining a remunerative freightage was a de-
viation, and would entitle him to move for a nonsuit.
Sir T. WILDE concurred on behalf of the plaintiff, and
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE accordingly directed the jury to
find a general verdict for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
BOW-STREET.

Mr. Cooper, the stage-manager of Drury-lane Theatre, ap-
plied to the sitting magistrate for a summons against certain
parties who were engaged by Mr. Bunn, the lessee of that
establishment, in the capacity of chorus-singers, and who,
there was reason to suppose, were about to transfer their ser-
vices to the Italian Opera House.
Mr. JARDINE inquired the grounds on which the lessee of
Drury-lane Theatre had come to that conclusion ? Mr.
Cooper said, the parties of whom he complained were eleven
in number, and had been engaged by Mr. Bunn as chorus-
singers for the season. He had recently ascertained that
they had attended several rehearsals that had taken place of
the forthcoming performances at the other theatre, which was
no doubt preparatory to their accepting an engagement at that
house, although they were all the time in the service of Mr.
Bunn, and paid a weekly salary by him—of course Mr. Bunn
was anxious to put a stop to such a proceeding on their part.
Mr. JARDINE said he had a great very doubt whether the
case was one over which he, as a police magistrate, had any
jurisdiction. The only Act of Parliament which gave a ma-
gistrate jurisdiction in the case of a breach of an engagement
between masters and servants applied exclusively to handi-
craftsmen, such as smiths, carpenters, &c., and which gave
the complaining parties a speedy remedy in case of any breach
of the contract entered into between them.

Mr. Cooper said that it would be attended with very con-
siderable inconvenience to the lessee or proprietor of a theatre,
if persons whose services he had engaged for the entire sea-
son could abandon the contract into which they had entered
with him at any moment they pleased, and transfer their ser-
vices to another establishment.

Mr. JARDINE would admit that, but at the same time he
knew of remedy for the evil, except an action at law against
the parties for a breach of contract, a proceeding which would
be attended with considerable expense and delay. Perhaps
the better course to pursue would be to [make an application
to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the
persons from entering into an engagement with the proprie-
tors of another theatre until the period for which their ser-
vices had been engaged by the lessee of Drury-lane Theatre
had expired.
Mr. Cooper said, that he much feared a suit in Chancery
would be even more objectionable to the lessee than an action
at common law.

Mr. JARDDIE said, if the lessee was unwilling to adopt legal
proceedings, the only course he could suggest was that he
should give notice to the parties of whose conduct he com-
plained of the illegality of their proceedings, and to inform
them that if they refused to abide by the contract they had
entered into with him legal proceedings would be taken
against them. However, he had only to repeat that the case
was not one over which he had any jurisdiction.

Mr. Cooper promised to act upon the suggestion; and,
having thanked the worthy Magistrate for his attention,
withdrew.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A tradesman, named Kay,was summoned last week by the
parish authorities of St. Giles's, for refusing to support his
grandchildren.

The parish prosecutor now said, that by subsequent in-
quiry circumstances had become known to him which dis-
inclined the parish at present to press on the grandfather,
Kay. The old man was very ill, and it appeared he was
just about to call his creditors together. As his ability to
support his grandchildren was therefore very doubtful, the
magistrates would perhaps advise the case to stand over till
some evidence could be adduced affirrnatory of his power
to aid them.

The MAGISTRATE agreed that it would be well to delay
for a month or so, :by which time Mr. Kay would no
doubt appear personally, and show cause why the order
should not be made upon him.
George Garrett was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged
with having stolen a dog belonging to a foreign gentleman
named Calza, living in Portugal-street. The prisoner, it
appeared, was seen by police constable Russell, following a
gentleman who had a little dog with him in Regent-street.
The prisoner, who seemed an expert hand, adroitly con-
trived to cut the string by which the dog was held, without
being perceived by the owner, and then, snatching the dog
up and concealing it in his apron, he ran down Argyll-street.
The constable, however, was on the alert, and he not only
succeeded in capturing the prisoner with the dog, upon him,
but he contrived to make the owner acquainted with the loss
he had unawares sustained. The prisoner was found to be an
inhabitant of one of the streets in Spitalfields, in the very
centre of the locality where the dog stealers abound. As
there were good grounds for believing that the prisoner was
an old offender, he was fined 11., the value of the dog, and
201. for stealing it, and in default of payment he was sent for
six months to hard labour.