The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-26 00:00:00

FRIDAY

His Honor the -Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the
whole morning with unopposed petitions, short causes , and the
part-hcard case of " Beautill v. Bridges."

(Before Vice. Chancellor KNIGHT Baum)
THOMAS V. JONES.

This cause came before the Court on further directions and
costs. The case was originally heard before Lord CottEnham.
The object of the suit was to prevent the defendant from obtain-
ing certain slime and mineral 3 from a pool in Wales, called
Llathedlm. His Lordship granted an injunction with respect
to the mineral, and directed an issue with respect to the re-
mainder. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff His
Honour now granted the injunction prayed by the bill, and di-
rceted an account of all mineral which had hitherto been taken
by the defendant.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 24.
(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
RAINEY V. RAINBRIGOE.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Erle, and anther counsel were for
the plaintiff; Mr. Hill, and another gentleman for the defendant.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an eminent auctioneer,
against the surviving trustee to an estate, for 3531., being costs out
of pocket, and a commission of one per cent on 35,0001 the price of
an estate which plaintiff had been engaged to sell. The defence was,
that the estate in question, Brand Hall, in Shropshire, was sold by
private contract by one of the trustees, the plaintiff having failed to
sell it by auction ; but defendant had paid 2031. Ills. into Court,
as a full liquidation of all plaintiff was entitled to,

The question was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to I per cent,
under the circumstances.

It appeared that in 1837 the defendant, and his deceased col-
leagues, wished to dispose of four heavily mortgaged estates in
Shropshire, including Brand Hall. Mr. Rainey undertook to sell
them, agreeing with Mr. Mess the solicitor and the trustees, for a
remuneration of one per cent. whether he should sell the estates
by auction, or whether they, afte► availing themselves of his sur-
veys, valuations, and advice, should effect a sale by private con-
tract before the day fixed for the auction. All the estates had
been sold by private contract, but the present question related to
Brand Hall only. In 1837 plaintiff put up the Brand estate, but
' " " '•

got no bidders. Next year the trustees sold it to Mr. Silli' to, a
gentleman long resident in the neighbourhood for 35,0001, entirely
without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Messrs. Hoggart, Wistanley, Lea, and Driver, eminent auc-
tioneers, were called up to prove, that according to the custom of
the profession, plaintiff was entitled to one per cent., though he
had failed in selling the estate.
Mr. Hoggart thought the plaintiff entitled to Lis c aim. Wit
ness had never got 1 per cent. under such circumstances himself,
but he once demanded it when a property worth 200,0001. had been
sold ; and his claim being disputed, he accepted per cent. sooner
than go to law.
Mr. Winstanley had been paid 1 per cent, in a similar case, the
vendor making 'us objection whatever.

Mr. Driver instanced a case in which Baron Rothschild paid
without objection.

Mr. Hill contended that these precedents did not prove the
existence of a general custom. If such was the custom, it was
not a reasonable one; but, looking to analogy, it would be seen by
a recent decision in the Court of Common Pleas, that a broker
having undertaken to charter a ship, but having failed, was entitled
to nothing. Moreover, the plaintiff's own demands showed the
distrust of any such binding custom.
Mr. Breary, of Derby, an extensive auctioneer, who had sold
estates for the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Newcastle, and
other distinguished noblemen and gentlemen, said he had never be.
fore heard of such a demand as this. Under the present cir-
cumstances, he thought the sum offered as compensation,
namely, fifty guineas, ample remuneration for Mr. Rainey. Wit-
ness should consider himself very well paid at such a rate, and as
for charging for a preliminary conference he should think himself
sufficiently remunerated by the honour conferred, when a gentleman
sends for an auctioneer to consult him.—(Laughter.
A cause formerly gained by Mr. Rainey, When he claimed a
commission on an estate sold before the day of sale was referred
to. But it was proved that, so far from causing the purchase
of the estate by Mr. Sillitto, Mr. Rainey, had continued
to advertise it for sale after that purchase, being in fact first
apprised of this transaction by Mr. Sillitto calling to ask what other
estate near Market Drayton was to be sold.
It was further argued for plaintiff that the trustees had availed
themselves of his experience in offices and connexions, and that
. .

they had acted unhandsomely in closing with Mr. Sillitto unknown
of the plaintiff, who might have got a better purchaser than Mr.
Sillitto; and further that an auctioneer's time, as well as his actual
services in such cases, i hould be paid for. In fact, his engage-
ment had not determined when the trustees sold Brand Hall to
Mr. Sillitto.

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of
fifty guineas beyond the sum paid into Court.

FRIDAY.

Has Lordship was engaged the whole morning in trying the case of

EVELYN V. CHIPPENDALE,
a case involving several questions of disputed accounts. Various
attempts were made during the course of the morning to induce
the parties to refer the cause, but without avail. The case was of
no public interest whatever.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 24.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TtNDAL and a Special Jury.)
SCOTT V. CRAWFORD AND CO.

This was an action brought for the recovery of a balance of an
account which extended over a number of years. The plaintiff is
an extensive merchant in Manchester, and the defendants are also
merchants, of great celebrity in the City of London. The details
of the case were totally devoid of public interest.

FRIDAY.
(Sittings at Guildhall.)
THE LORD MAYOR OF LCNDON V. THE PEWTERERS' COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the Corporation of London against
the Pewterers' Company, for an obstruction of light in a house in
the neighbourhood of Leaden_ hall Market, the property of the
Corporation.

It appeared that in the year 1815 the house in question had been
rebui.t with windows, which commanded a view of some adjoining
premises of the defendants. Complaints were made in eonsequence
by the Company a few years after, and negotiations had been pend.
ing upon the subject between them and the Corporation up to the
year 18'20, which remained unconcludeJ. In the year 1840 the
Company renewed their complaints. and subsequently erected
an obstruction, which shut out the light from the house of the
plaintiff; and the present action was brought to try their right
to take such a proceeding.
These facts having been proved for the plaintiffs, and admitted
in the opening speech for thedefence by the counsel of the Company,
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said that it appeared that the Corpo.
ration had been left for twenty years in undisputed yossession of
the right to have the windows in the house in question, and there-
fore that right, according the statute, could not be disturbed.
The case for the defence was abandoned in consequence of this
declaration of the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, and the Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
Serjeant Wilde conducted the case for the Corporation, and Mr.
Channel appeared for the defendants.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 25.
" Taylor v. Monk," " Waterman v. _____" These were untie.
fended actions, in which verdicts were found for the plaintiffs.

WYNYARD V. COLYEN.
This was an action to recover tre .um of 51. 11a. Id., for work
done and performed.

The plea put upon the record was, that the defendant was never
indebted. It appeared that the plaintiff is abuilder, and had been en-
gaged by the defendant to complete some houses in Hyde-park.
square. The defence set up was, that the plaintiff was not the
person engaged to do the work, consequently he wa, not in a posi-

tion to bring the action. It was further alleged that the order was
given by the foreman of the defendant, and he ought to be liable for
the amount. This failing in proof, the verdict was taken for the
plaintif for the full amount.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 23.

RE THOMAS DUCRTON.

The insolvent, who described himself as a japanner, carrying on
business in Castle-street, Leicester-square, applied on his petition to
be discharged.

Mr. COOKE, who appeared on behalf of the insolvent, stated in
explanation of a large debt which appeared in his schedule as due
to Messrs. Jackson and Graham, that the insolvent's trade required
the use of large quantities of combustible matter, and some short
time back his house was burnt to the ground. Not being insured,
he was left almost pennyless, when the Duke of Portland very
kindly presented him with 1501, to help in rebuilding the house;
and blessrs. Jackson and Graham advanced him the ba.
lance necessary far the purpose, taking a warrant of
attorney on the lease of the site of the house. Un.
fortunately just as the building was finished, it was again burnt
down, and Messrs. Jackson and Co. levied judgment and sold the
lease for a sum far less than the amount of their debt.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said he was perfectly satisfied with

the state of the insolvent's accounts, as described in Ms balance
sheet, and he should consequently order him to be discharged
forthwith.