The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

DEBNEY V. BERGONZI.
How TO GET UP A JURY.—On this cause being
called on,

Mr. HUMFREY rose, and said this was a special jury
case, but the jury had only been struck, and not sum-
moned. He was, therefore, willing to try the case with
a common jury.
Mr. MARTIN said, at that advanced hour of the day
he should certainly object to such a course.
The summoning officer intimated, with the view no
doubt of saving time, that there was not a common jury
present.

Mr. HUMFREY said he would get rid of that difficulty
by praying a tales, and moving that the Sheriff do make
an immediate return of jurors,
Whereupon a long discussion ensued as to the legality
of such a course, but his Lordship ultimately decided that
it was legal, and the sheriff's representative immediately
made up a jury by insisting upon the twelve indi-
viduals in the body of the Court who were nearest to
him entering the box, whether it was agreeable to
themselves or not.

Mr. MARTIN, being still anxious that the case should
not be disposed of at that period of the day, offered to
allow the venue to be changed, so that the case might be
tried on the first day of next term.

Mr. HUMFREY declined to accede to this without the
defendant paid the costs of the day.
Mr. MARTIN said he would consent to no such pro-
posal, but, if the case were proceeded with, he should
throw every obstacle in its way, and take every possible
objection to the proceedings. In the first place, he
would have the jury sworn individually, and he should
object to those who were not qualified to serve.
Several of the gentlemen who had been so precipi-
tately hurried into the box were found not to possess a
single qualification for jurymen, and now the sheriff's
representative evinced as much eagerness to drag them
out as he had proviously done to push them in, and,
with unblushing effrontery, told them they ought to have
known better than enter the box without any qualifica
tions. After a good deal of bustle this courteous func-
tionary succeeded in scraping together a jury, and the
case was opened nearly three-quarters of an hour after it
had been first called on.

POLICE IN TELLIGEN CE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. George Robinson, a student residing in the Tem-
ple, and one of his friends named John Ross, attended
to answer a charge of assault which had been preferred
against them by Mrs. Jane Fish, of Gloucester-street,
Queen-square. A woman who had passed as Mrs. Ro-
binson (and who was recently tried at the Old Bailey,
for stealing a piece of silk from a tavern at Norwood,
while she was out for a day's spree with Mrs. Fish
and Mr. Ross) did not surrender to meet the charge,
though she was aware she was included in the warrant.
Mrs. Fish stated that she is the wife of John Fish,
who is now lying dangerously ill. On the 10th of No-
vember sh• went to Mr. Robinson's chambers in the
Temple, having received a note inviting her.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked if it stated for what ob-
ject ? She said she believed it did not, but her solicitor
had it. She supposed it was to receive her rent, as she
had sent in a bill for 51. 12s. Mr. and Mrs. Robinson
had lodged in her house three weeks. She found Mr.
Ross waiting in the court, and detaining her a few
minutes he showed her up to Mr. Robinson's rooms,
where she found Mrs. Robinson.

Mr. Alderman WILSON asked why Mrs. Robinson
was not in attendance ? Mr. Robinson said she was not
his wife. She was living with him some time ago.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked if she had not been
living with him since as well as before she went to pri-
son ? Mr. Robinson replied she had left him, and he
had no control over her.

Mrs. Fish continued her statement--On entering the
room Mrs. Robinson asked her if she had brought the
rest of her clothes. Witness said she had not, because her
son was not at home, and she said she wished she had
never seen Mrs. Robinson. The latter flew at her
immediately, and began beating her furiously.
Mr. Robinson interposed, and forced his lady back to
the sofa. She rushed upon witness a second time, and
was again pulled off by Mr. Robinson. Mr. Ross had
locked the door, or she could have escaped. Mrs.
Robinson renewed the attack, though Mr. Robinson
stood to keep her off; but she got at witness, knocked
her down, and kicked her, and tore her face. She was
black and blue from head to foot.

Mr. Alderman WILSON asked why she had included
Mr. Robinson in the warrant? She replied, because he
levelled a gun at her, and threatened to shoot her if she
cried out, and Mrs. Robinson was then beating her.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked what Ross did? She
said he, by command of Robinson, put a chair against
the door, and stood against it to prevent her from leav-
ing the room till Mrs. Robinson had done beating her.
At last she heard something said amongst them like,
" She has had enough of it now." She had not yet re-
covered the use of her arm, and was suffering from an
internal rupture.
Mr. Robinson asked her if he did not use every exer-
tion to prevent Mrs. Robinson from beating her, and if
he did not pull her off four times? Mrs. Fish said he
twice, and then let Mrs. Robinson boat her
as
si d s sh o only e
pleased; and he said he would be revenged if he
went to the bottom of hell for it.

Mr. Robinson replied that he could not say he recollected
using any expressions of the kind. He also denied that
Ross locked the door by his order; as also that he
levelled a gun at her. lie did his utmost to prevent the
affray; but Mrs. Wilmore, who was called Mrs. Robin-
son, was a tall and vary powerful woman. He sent for

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 23.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His HONOUR heard cause petitions to-day, taking the
unopposed first. None of the causes that came before
the Court possessed any points of interest except to
the parties concerned.
HANGATE V. &SCOIGNE.

In this petition the arguments were concluded, and
His HONOUR gave judgment, giving the parties liberty
to file a bill of review on the payment of the costs.
The Court rose at three o'clock.
His Honour will not sit again till the 12th of January,
1846, the first day of Hilary Term. The Court sits on
that day at Westminster, at ten o'clock.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins in London, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON. and a special jury.)
LAMERTE V. HEATH.
This was an action on the case brought to recover back
a sum of money paid in respect of certain shares which
subsequently turned out to be fictitious, to which the de-
fendant had pleaded, denying his liability, and upon this
plea issue was joined.
Mr. Jervis, Mr. M. Chambers, and Mr. Woodstock
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin and Mr. Mills
for the defendant.
The plaintiff was the well-known dentist, and an ex-
tensive share speculator, and the defendant a share-
broker and a member of the Stock Exchange. The ac-
tion was instituted to recover 4321. 10s., which the plain-
tiff had paid to the defendant for 280 shares in the Kent-
ish Coast Railway, but the scrip certificates for which
shares subsequently turned out not to be genuine. It
would appear from the evidence, that the Kentish Coast
Railway first originated in 1844, with Mr. Curling,
a solicitor, who induced Sir John Ayre, Mr.
Daniel, the chairman of the Blackwell Rail-
way Company, and several other gentlemen well
known in the City, and of unimpeachable character, to
allow themselves to be published to the world as the
provisional committee of the undertaking, and it na
turally ensued that the application for allotment of
shares in the project were exceedingly numerous. The
shares were allotted in due course, but only a few of
them were paid upon—indeed, only some 8004 upon
603 shares—and the result was, that a meeting of the
Directors was convened, and a resolution come to, that
the scrip should not be issued ; but, at the re-
quest of Mr. Curling, the originator of the
project, the Directors abstained from dissolving the
Company, or rather agreed to rest upon their oars till
the Board of Trade reported upon the line, the plans
having been made and deposited as previously agreed
upon, at the expense of Mr. Curling himself. In the
meanwhile, however, some of the Directors learned, to
their great astonishment, that the scrip of the Company,
which ought to have been signed by two of the acting
committee, had been issued by Mr. Curling and Mr.
Richardson, the secretary, signed only by the latter, and
was actually being largely dealt in upon the Stock Ex-
change. This circumstance, conjointly with an adverse
report of the Board of Trade, led to a second
meeting of the Directors, and at this meeting it was
resolved to repudiate the scrip issued by Mr. Curling,
upon which the deposits had been paid directly to the
Secretary without passing through the hands of the
Company's bankers, to refund the 8001 paid in the usual
and proper course upon the 603 shares befere alluded to,
and to put an end to the Company altogether. Now,
the plaintiff had purchased shares of the defendant in
this Kentish Coast Railway, but it afterwards turned
out that the scrip certificates delivered by the defendant
for these shares were portions of those repudiated by the
Directors, which, becoming worthless upon the formal
dissolution of the Company, the plaintiff determined to
bring the present action to recover back the amount he
had paid to the defendant for the shares, as money had
and received.
Mr. MARTIN, in his address to the jury for the de-
fence, said the case involved a question of considerable
importance, which had never yet been before the Courts,
namely, what was the extent of responsibility a jobber
upon the Stock Exchange incurred in selling scrip
certificates for railway shares. He apprehended and con.
tended that he incurred no responsibility at all, because
the certificate itself contained no contract, and the
broker warranted nothing beyond the signature to
the certificate. With respect to the solvency or likeli-
hood of the scheme being carried out, he had nothing
whatever to do, for the purchaser had the same means
as the broker himself of ascertaining the prudence or
imprudence of a purchase. The question was one of
law, and for the Court to decide; but there was a second
question in the case, which the jury would hare to de-
cide, namely, had not Mr. Curling, in issuing these cer-
tificates, acted as the servant of the Directors, and were
they not bound by them, and liable to refund the plain-
tiff the money he had paid for them?
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said a stock-
jobber was liable in the same way as other parties who
bought and sold. There was no mystery in dealing in
shares any more than there was in dealing in cotton. A
man bargained to buy cotton, the vendor was bound to
deliver the same, and that was the case with shares.
For instance, if a man bargained to buy a cask
of brandy, which had passed through many hands,
and it subsequently turned out to be water, it was no
defence to say, " The dock company delivered it as
brandy, and you must recover from them.” AU the
cases in the 'books supported this view, and the only
question the jury had to decide was, whether the shares
delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff were the shares
of the Kentish Coast Railway or not.
The jury, after retiring for upwards of two hours and
a half, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.