The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARL/4 S.
RICH Y. TIIE GAS 1.1311 T AND COKE CO3IPANY.

The Court was occupied until its rising with
hearing Counsel in this cause.
Mr. SUGDEN stated it to be an appeal from the
Vice-Chancellor. It appeared that 1812, the Com-
pany was established in Bridge-street. Blackfriars,
and that at that period the plaintiff, Sir George
Rich, took two shares in it. lie afterwards sub-
scribed for two-and-twenty other shares, and then
for two more; so that, in the whole, he was the
holder of 26 shares. A dispute, host ever, arose
between him and the Company respecting the two
last shares, in consequence of some alleged irregu-
larity or default in payment of the amount of the
shares; and by a resolution of the Company, they
were declared forfeited. This was rescinded two
years afterwards, and by a certificate it appeared
that the Company acknowledged the plaintiff to have
standing in his name 26 shares. In July, 1817, the
capital of the Company was increased by the sale of
other shares, and the plaintiff directed Mr. Pedler,
the secretary of the Company and his own particular
friend, to buy, in his name, 26 other shares. At
the same time he remitted to Mr. Pedler 2601., to
pay the requisite instalments of 10/. each -sn these
shares. Mr. Pedler did not comply with the
directions thus given to him, and only twenty-four
shares were entered in his name in the company's
books. Sir Geo. Rich, in the whole course of this
transaction, considered Mr. Pedler as the agent of
the Company ; and, although upon terms of inti-
macy with him, applied to him to effect the pur-
chase of these shares, and the proper person autho-
rized by the company for that purpose. The pre-
sent dispute had arisen solely in consequence of his
default. lie had put into his own pocket 20/. of
the 260/. remitted to him by Sir G. Rich for the
purchase of 26 shares, and had entered only 21
shares in the name of the plaintiff. It was one of
the resolutions of the company, that the number of
shares disposed of in the new company should net
exceed, in respect of any individual, the number of
shares held by that individual in the former com-
pany, and it was said that it being considered the
plaintiff had only 21 shares in the former Company,
he could have no more entered in his name as a
holder of the new shares. This, however, was
disproved by the certificate which he had formerly
alluded to. The question, therefore, at issue be-
tween the parties was, whether Mr. Pedler bad act-
ed as Sir G. Rich's agent or as officer of the Com-
pany. When the cause came to be heard before
the Vice-Chancellor, his Honour had decided that
Pedler acted for the plaintiff in this transaction, and
not for the Company; that the plaintiff was entitled
to 26 shares of the capital of the old Company, and
to 24 shares of that of the new one. Against this
decision the present appeal was lodged.
Mr. HoRNE was heard on the other side, until the
rising of the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH S.
THE KING V. HUDSON.

This was an indictment for wilful and corrupt
perjury.
The present proceeding arose out of a prosecution
some months since instituted against a person of the
name of Ramsdell, and several others, for a con-
spiracy to defraud the creditors of Ramsden, against
whom a commission of bankrupt had issued. The
indictment in that case (upon which some of the
defendants had been convicted) was preferred at the
instance of the present defendant Hudson, who was
examined as a witness in support of his own prosecu-
tion ; and if there was any one case in which per-
jury could be aggravated, it was where it was com-
mitted by a person who voluntarily went into the
witness box and gave evidence against a party in a
prosecution instituted by himself. The present de-
fendant, in the course of a cross-examination which
he underwent for the purpose of affecting his credit,
was asked, amongst other things, whether he had
had ever been engaged in the service of the Bank of
England, and whether he had been dismissed from
that service ? he admitted that he had been employed
as a clerk in the Bank, but denied that he had ever
been dismissed from his situation. He was then
asked whether he had not been dismissed for mis-
conduct, and he swore positively that he had not.
Some enquiry afterwards took place, the result of
which was, the present indictment for perjury.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT, after making a few general
observations, called a witness, who produced a
record of the conviction of Ramsden, and another on
the prosecution for conspiracy. Upon its being
read, and the present indictment compared with it,
it was found that in the latter the former indictment
was mis-described.

The Jury then, under his Lordship's directions,
pronounced the defendant Not Guilty.

WHEELER V. LONG AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the amount of cer-
tain law costs paid by the plaintiff in an action
brought by him against a person named Tilley, to
enforce the performance of a contract made on his
behalf by the defendants, in 1824.
The plaintiff was a respectable wine-merchant.
The defendants, Messrs. Long and Edwards, be-
longed to a class of men (brokers) who in general
did their business in a very irregular manner. In
1824, the plaintiff employed the defendants as
brokers, to buy for him a quantity of wine. A Mr.
Tilley, a harness-maker, of Long-acre, had also given
them a commission to sell for him some Cape wine.
For the sale of this to the plaintiff they entered into
a contract, and sent to him a sale note, dated the 2d
of April, 1824, in the following words—" Bought,
for account of John Wheeler, of William Tilley, 55
pipes and 30 hogsheads of Cape white wine, now
lying in the London Docks, at 13/. per pipe, to be
paid for on transfer, by bill at six months, for
one half the amount, and the remainder by cash,
on receipt of transfer, on Saturday, the 17th
instant, allowing discount on the amount from
that day to the 2d of October, 1824." A du-
plicate of this contract was sent to Mr. Tilley, on
the evening of the day it was made ; and on the fol-
lowing day Mr. Tilley gave notice that he objected
to it, stating, that he had given the defendants no
authority to enter into a contract on such terms.—
The plaintiff, upon receiving this intimation, applied
to his attornies, who immediately wrote to Mr.
Tilley, requiring him to fulfil the contract. Mr.
Tilley objected to do eo. The plaintiff then re-
ferred to the defendants, who still insisted that they
had been authorised by Mr. Tilley to make the sale
on the terms specified in the contract. After some
correspondence between Mr. Tilley's attornies and
the attorney of the plaintiff (Mr. Wheeler), Mr.
Wheeler at length brought an action against Mr.
Tilley for the non-fulfilment of the contract. Mr.
Tilley defended the action, which was tried at the
sittings after Trinity Term, in 1824. The verdict
passed against Mr. Wheeler, who, in consequence,
was saddled with the whole costs on both sides,
amounting to 101/. 12s. 9d. To recover that sum
the present action was brought.

Proof was given of the-contract; of the action
against Mr. Tilley at the suit of the present plaintiff;
and of the costs paid by the latter, amounting to
101/. I2s. 9d.

After evidence for the plaintiff had been adduced,
The COM3ION SERGEANT addressed the Jury for
the defendants ; after which, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff—Damages, 101/.

JACKSON r. lIASRIXS.

This was at: action against the defendant, a jew-
eller, carrying on business in the Quadrant, Regent-
street, to recover 25/., the balance of wages dne to
the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a young man, was en-
gaged by the defendant as his shopman, at a salary of
40/. a-year, payable quarterly. He continued in the
defendant's service nearly three years,, and had been
regularly paid up to the end of the year 1826, or
beginning of 1827, shortly after which time he
quitted the defendant's service. The balance of
wages due to him at that time was 25/., which the
defendant refused to pay, alleging that he had de-
tected the plaintiff in dishonest practices. There