The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

HOME V. BOOTH AND OTHERS.
The defendants are the well known distillers Sir Felix
Booth, and Co., and this action is brought upon an
agreement for' the payment of an annuity. It appeared
that the plaintiff communicated to the defendants a
secret receipt for the making of British Brandy, for
which they agreed to give him in the first place, an an-
nuity of 1501., with a per tentage on the profits arising
from the use of his secret—with this condition, that his
annuity should cease as soon as, or be suspended as long
as, the per centage amounted to 400/. per annum.
Subsequently an annuity of 300/. was agreed
upon in lieu of the first. The contingency
upon which the former annuity was conditioned to deter-
mine having occurred—that is, the per centage having
risen to 400/, the defendants refused to continne the
annuity granted in the second instance, thereupon
this action was brought. In the declaration the plaintiff
set forth a letter from the deitndants consenting to
give the increased annuity without mention of the con-
dition, and he alleged that it was otherwise understood
that the new annuity was not to be affected by the per
centage.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL was heard this morning in
support of the demurrer to this declaration, and argued
at great length, raising many technical points on the
authority of cases on the books, but chiefly contending
that the terms of the letter were legally sufficient to
limit the second annuity, by the conditions of the for-
mer one, for which it was substituted.

Mr. Sergeant TALPOURD supported the declaration,
And the COURT took time to consider.

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)
The Court took the special paper this morning.
HORNE V. RA3ISDALE.

The plaintiff in this action sued in his capacity of Clerk
to the Commissioners of Staines Bridge, and sought to
recover damages from the defendant for not executing a
bond according to agreement. The Commissioners had,
under the provisions of their Act of Parliament, let the
tolls of the bridge to Mr. Taylor, for 1841, at
2,0001. He gave in the names of - Simpson and
the defendant, as his sureties, and the three signed an
agreement to execute a bond of surety when the Com-
missioners bad prepared a valid lease to Taylor. The
defendant had pleaded that at the time he was called
upon to perform the agreement, his co-surety was not
present, and that when the bond was tendered to him
for execution, the co-surety was dead. The plaintiffs
had demurred to this plea.
Mr. CLEASLEY now supported the demurrer. If the
plea were to be held good, an agreement to sign a bond
would be wholly void and of no effect, because each of
the sureties had only to refuse to meet the other, and
the agreement would be valueless. It was impossible for
the plaintiff to oblige the sureties to meet; it was enough
for him to have prepared a valid lease to Tailor, and
tendered the bond for execution to the sureties. All

that had been done, and he submitted the plea was bad.
Mr. ERLE submitted that the plea was good. He
pleaded first that his co-surety was not present when he
was called upon to perform the agreement, and that
when it was tendered to him the co-surety was dead. He
contended that the Commissioners ought, like the
trustees of a turnpike-road, to have withheld the lease
from Taylor until he produced his two sureties. In
place of doing so they chose to give the lease to Taylor
with the bond, signed wily by Simpson. They were
satisfied with that security, until the lessee of the tolls be-
came insolvent, and Simpson died ; it was not until the
circumstances were so altered that they tendered the
bond for executon by the defendant, thereby wishing to
throw all the responsibility on his shoulders. He sub-
mitted that the Commissioners had committed a mistake

in giving the lease to Taylor upon an improper security,
and they had no right to throw the onus of it upon the
defendant.

The COURT were of opinion that they must construe
the contract as it was meant at the time it was entered
into, and that was, that each of the sureties agreed to
sign the bond separately, and the events made no alte-
ration in its meaning. This case shoWed the truth of
the adage that " Delays are dangerous."
Judgment ,for the plaintiff.

HORNE, CLERK TO TRUSTEES, V. RAMSDALE.
This was a similar action brought by the trustees of
the road leading to this bridge. The objection was the
same.—Judgment for the plaintiff.