The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-12 00:00:00

LEVY V. FYNE.

This was an action upon a promissory note of Count
D'Orsay's, to the amount of 4201., made payable to
Messrs. Pyne and Richards, solicitors and money-
scriveners. It appeared that the bill on its arrival at
maturity had been dishonoured ; upon which the
plaintiff, who is a Sheriff's officer, and an extensive
bill discounter, issued process, and ultimately obtained
judgment. After various negotiations between the
parties, the plaintiff consented to take the present bill
in lieu ofjudgment ; and it was to recover the amount
of this bill that the action was now brought. The
allegation on the part of the defendants was, that
the bill had been signed by the defendant Pyne without
the authority of his partner Richards.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Humfries appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Kelly for the defendants.
Two sons of the plaintiff proved that there had
been various bill transactions between their father and
the defendants, and that Pyne had frequently attached
to those bills the name of the firm.
Charles Lewis, the attorney in the case, stated that
the promissory-note had been received from P 3 re.
He had brought the action against Pyne and Richards
and received judgment. He was pressing for payment,
and was threatening to take the three parties to the
bill in execution of the judgment. He was, however, in-
duced to accept the present bill in lieu of the judgment
against them. The bill was brought to him by Pync;
but he had seen Richards the day after, who expressed
his gratification that the matter had been so settled.
Upon hearing this statement, the Counsel ft•r the
defendants intimated that they should press the case
no farther, as it clearly showed that Richards was a
consenting party to the arrangement that had been
made. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for
the 4201. _ . .

A further verdict was entered for the plaintiff in
the sum of 8201., the amount of another promissory
note ; the evidence, which was not entered into, being,
it was understood, exactly the same as in the other case

SECONDARIES' COURT, IVov. 11.
NOGGINS AND OTHERS V. GORDON AND SON.

This was a writ of inquiry, the acti in being for
1911. 195., the costs of an award in a case of arbitration.
Mr. Peacock appeared, for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Bovill for the defendants.

The plaintiffs and defendants in this case are mer-
chants in the City of London. In the year 1840, an
action was commenced by the defendants against a
Mr. Gawen, who had since become bankrupt. The
action was for 25,0001., and the case was referred to
arbitration. The plaintiffs were appointed to arbitrate
between the parties ; and it was for the costs of this
arbitration that the present action was brought. There
were seven meetings held for the purpose of investi-
gating the accounts, and no meeting lasted less than
four hours, and on one occasion the meeting lasted
upwards of ten hours, owing to the complicated na-
ture of the accounts. The claim of the defendants
was reduced to 4,0001., and the award had never been
delivered up to them, as they refused to pay the costs
of the reference. The accounts consisted of accommo-
dation bills, given by the defendants to Gawen, and
great trouble was taken by the arbitrators in the exa-
mination of the vouchers.

Mr. Blount, a large shipowner, was called to prove
that the charges for the arbitration were reasonable.
He could not consider 101. 10s. too much for a whole
day for each arbitrator. When he had attended ar-
bitrations, he had charged 2/. 2s. for two hours.
Mr. Warrener, the landlord of the George and
Vulture Tavern, was called to prove that the meet-
ings held by the plaintiff were very protracted. The
tavern bill, the use of the room, waiters, coffee, and
dinner was 101. _ _

Mr. Frederick Vellings, the attorney who drew up
the award, stated that his bill came to 171. 2s. 2d.
He thought the charges for the arbitration were ma-
sonable.—This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bovux addressed the jury, and contended that
the charge was most exorbitant. Most of the time
had been wasted by the arbitrators in conversation and
drinking coffee, and he would put witnesses into the
box to prove that 451. or 501. was a fair remuneration
for the services of the plaintiffs.
He then called several witnesses, who considered two
guineas for each sitting quite sufficient.
The Jury, after consulting a short time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 951.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, named George Fox, who has been
examined several times upon charges of embezzlement
alleged to have been committed upon his employers,
Messrs. Johnson, Bulman, and Johnson, of Watling-
street, and who has been out upon bail, appeared for
final examination before the Lord Mayor.
Mr. Chambers appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers stated that the defendant was con-
fidentially employed by Messrs. Johnson and Co. as a
warehouseman. The principal business of the prose-
cutors was wholesale, but they occasionally did retail
business, and the rule of the house was, that every
clerk who took money, should enter the same in a
rough book, with the letters R.M., to show that it was
a ready-money transaction. It was also the duty of
the clerk to carry the money to the cashier, who made
an entry in the cash-book, so that there should be no
question as the fact of the entry. The prosecutors
had ascertained that in. five or six instances the de-
fendant had received money which he had neither en-
tered in the rough book, handed to the cashier, nor in
any way accounted for. The defendant had even en-
tered credit transactions with parties whose ready-
money transactions he had not at all entered. The
prosecutors, who did not know to what extent depre-
dations were carried on by their servants, were deter-
mined in every case to investigate to the extreme, and
to inflict exemplary punishment wherever they found
guilt to be be established.

Catherine Johnson,cook to Messrs. Johnson, Bul-
man, and Co., deposed that she purchased of the de-
fendant three collars in the month of April, and paid
him thirteen shillings for them in the kitchen. She
received from him a bill of parcels, but it had neither
date nor receipt to it.
Mr. John Johnson, a partner in the house of John-
son and Co., stated that he examined the rough book
kept by the defendant, but found no entry of the
sum or sums alluded to by Catherine Johnson in it.
Upon looking at the bill of parcels produced by the
last witness, he said he believed it to be in the hand-
writing of the defendant, but could not swear to
that fact.

Mr. W. Rutty, principal cashier in the employment
of Messrs. Johnson and Co., stated that he had ex-
amined the cashier's book to see whether the entry of

the thirteen shillings appeared as paid over in
but found no entry of such sum.
Mr. William Bandfield stated that he was in the
house of Messrs. Hodgkinson and Co., Piccadilly.
About the 30th of June he bought for his employers,
of the defendant, at the house of Messrs, Johnson and
Co., goods to the amount of about 3/. odd shillings, It
was a credit transaction. He bought at the same time
a collar, on his own account. ILt was brought up to
him at Hodgkinson's, and he paid the messenger 10s.
for it. Witness here produced a collar, which he said
was the one he purchased. He had seen the collar at
the warehouse when he called, and he observed the
defendant take it from a box under the counter, Wit-
ness did not think the defendant gave him an invoice,
for he could not find one, and he always preserved
any he received.
Clarkson handed the collar to the witness, and
asked him whether it was a French or an English
collar ? Witness—lt is a French collar.

Mr. Clarkson—Are you sure it is the collar you
purchased of Messrs. Johnson ? Witness—l am ;
My wife has worn it. It is the identical collar, but it
was without lace when I purchased it.
Mr. Clarkson—Mr. Johnson, do you sell French
collars ? Mr., Johnson—No ; we have a Scotch
article very like the French.

Michael Fowler, porter to Messrs. Johnson and Co.,
stated that he received the ten shillings from Mr.
Bandfield, and paid them over to the defendant.