The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-18 00:00:00

LAW INThLLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAR. 17.
NONES V. NEWMAN.

Mr. BICKERSTETH, at the sitting of the Court,
mentioned that he had a motion to submit, which, if
not made to-day, would be of no avail. His Learned
Friend (Mr. Sugden), however, who opposed the
application, was absent.
His LORDSHIP permitted the Learned Gentleman
to make the motion whenever Mr. Sugden came
into Court.

Towards the end of the day,Mr. BICKERSTETII
proceeded with his motion. It was an appeal mo-
tion from the decision of the Vice Chancellor, his
Honour having refused the application with costs.—
The original bill was filed by the plaintiff for the
specific performance of an agreement for a lease, and
for an injunction to stay execution under a verdict
obtained in an action of ejectment, to recover pos-
session of the lands respecting which the lease had
been granted. An answer was regularly put into the
bill, but owing to a dissolution of partnership of the
plaintiff's legal advisers, the time allowed for filing
a replication, viz., in Michaelmas Term last, was al-
lowed to pass. The defendant immediately took
advantage of the omission, and obtained an order, as
of course, dismissing the bill for want of prosecu-
tion. The plaintiff's solicitor, Mr. Michael (who
had, with some hostility, parted from his co-part-
ners), immediately applied to the defendants, and
offered to pay all costs, if he might be allowed to
file his replication. This was, however, refused;
and, upon an application to the Vice-Chancellor, his
Honour declined to make any order. The conse-
quence of the dismissal of the bill had of course
been, that the injunction (obtained after much dis-
cussion) had fallen to the ground, and the defendant
.was now about to act under the verdict obtained at
law. Under these peculiar circumstances, it was
prayed that the plaintiff might be at liberty to file
the replication as of Michaelmas Term last, and that
execution under the verdict should be stayed.
Mr. SUGDEN and Mr. CoE spoke against the
motion.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had attentively and pain-
fully considered this question, and, upon the whole,
thought there were sufficient merits to entitle the
plaintiff to obtain the order required. Upon pay-
ment of all costs, therefore, he should grant the pre-
sent motion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 17.
BASSET V. PRYOR.

Mr. BROUGHAIII stated, that the parties to this ac-
tion, in which the Protector Fire Insurance Com-
pany was concerned, had agreed to refer the matter
in dispute to arbitration.

Lord TENTERDEN remarked, that the public tvere
much interested in the resistance set 14 p by the Com-
pany to claims of this description.

SIBSEY V. BRISTOW.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated, that this was an action to
recover the sum of 671., due from the defendant to
the plaintiff, on a policy of insurance, on a ship
called the Malta, belonging to the port of Bristol,
for a voyage from Lynn, in Norfolk, to St. Peters-
burgh, and back again to Bristol. The defendant
had underwritten the policy for 1501. The ship had
experienced very bad weather in the course of the
voyage homewards from St. Petersburgh. When
she carne to the coast of England, and was attempt-
ing to get into Yarmouth roads, she struck on the
Stamford sands, in the vicinity of Lowestoffe. The
ship remained aground on these sands for about ten
minutes, and sustained considerable damage, and it
was found necessary to throw some of the cargo over-
board. The present claim was for the defendant's
share of the average loss. All the Underwriters,
except himself, had readily paid their shares.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Sixty-seven Pounds.

FLOUT) AND ANOTHER V. GUTHRIE.

This was an action to recover 721. • 16s. the
brokerage of one-half per cent. upon 14,5.591. I Is. 6d.
the sum for which 1021 chests of Madras indigo
had been sold by the plaintiffs, Floud and Parkins,
as brokers of the defendant, a merchant, the sur-
viving partner of the firm of Chalners and Guthrie.

VICATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The
plaintiffs had been employed to sell a quantity of
indigo for the defendant as his brokers. The sale
bad been effected, when circumstances of peculiar
difficulty had pressed on the market, and yet the
plaintiffs had succeeded in obtaining for the indigo
an adequate price. Mr. Guthrie professed to be per-
fectly satisfied, and the plaintiffs of course expected
him to pay the accustomed brokerage of per cent.
The plaintiff, Floud, on selling this indigo, had made a
contract in his own name for the unknown buyer,
and thus rendered himself responsible personally to
the defendant for the transaction. The whole of
Mr. Floud's conduct was governed by the same
rule. It was not the value of the money in dispute
between the parties that had brought him into
Court, but the principle for which he contended.
—Mr. Guthrie had paid one-half of the plaintiff's
claim into Court. The question was, whether he
was not entitled to the other half; whether the
claim he had set up was not warranted by the custom
of London. Mr. Floud would not forego what he
conceived to be his right, unless he heard that he
was bound to do so from brokers as long established
as himself. Mr. Guthrie had, in the first instance,
directed Messrs. Floud and Parkins to sell 24 chests,
but being anxious to dispose of the indigo, he had
given a similar commission to three other brokers for
equal portions of it. The party to whom Mr. F.
applied said he would be glad to take more if the rest
was like it. This was communicated to Mr. G. who
gaVe orders to sell the whole. A contract was ac-
cordingly made for the whole quantity, and it was
paid for by Mr. Floud by his draft in favour of Mr.
Guthrie. When the account was delivered, Mr.
Guthrie objected to pay the charge for brokerage,
and said, that as he had employed other brokers, he
should pay the plaintiffs their proportion. If he had
done so it became him to pay the parties be had
troubled ; but that could not in the slightest degree
impair the claim of the plaintiffs to the whole of the
commission. There could be no doubt, it would ap-
pear from the evidence of several of the most re-
spectable brokers in London, that the broker who
sold any article was entitled to the whole commis-
sion upon it, unless by contract he agreed to divide
it with any other broker. Two brokers might
agree to divide the commission between themselves ;
but the seller was always charged with the whole.
In this case, Floud was first employed to sell 25
chests, and afterwards the whole : he was, therefore,
clearly entitled to the commission upoit the whole.
Lord TENTERDEN said, it appeared.clear that the,
broker who sold the whole of any commodity was
entitled to the whole commission, unless there was
a special agreement to the contrary. The question
in this case was, whether the plaintiffs had agreed to
take less than they were entitled to demand by the
custom of their business.
The Jury, in a very few minutes, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs—Damages, Thirty-six Pounds
Eight Shillings.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 17.
BATTY AND OTHERS V. JWCUNDIE AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Messrs. 3utty,
Melville, and Co., wholesale stationers of
was de-
of Alders-
gate-street, against Mr. M'Cundie, w
scribed as being a person of property, Mr. Butcher,
of Snowhill, Mr. M`Callam an insurance broker in
the. City, and Mr. Baldy, a linen-draper, of Russell-
street, Covent-garden, to recover the sum of
280/. 6s. Id. for
stamps and paper, supplied to the
defendants as proprietors and partners of the London
Free 'Press.

Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL, in stating the case, said
the plaintiffs' demand had been resisted on a techni-
cal, if not a dishonourable, objection—namely, that
Colonel Jones, one of the plaintiffs, was a party inte-
rested in the paper. But he should distinctly prove
that such was not the case.
Mr. Northhouse said he had been the Editor of
the London Free Press. That paper was com-
menced on the 11th of February, 1827, and was
discontinued in the following June. All the de-
fendants held shares in the paper. Mr. M'Callam,