The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-07 00:00:00

NAME 07 RAILWAY.

Juno 2

July 1
June 29

Arbroath and Forfar ••••••••• • • • • ••
Bristol and Birmingham . • • • • • • • • • • • •
Chester and Birkenhead . • • • . • • • • • • • •
Dublin and Drogheda• • • • • . • • • • • • • • • •
Dublin and Kingstown • • • • .• • • • • • • • •
Dundee and Arbroath . •• • •
Durham and Sunderland ... ..... ... •
Edinburgh and Glasgow . •• • • • •• • • • •
Eastern Counties and North Eastern • •
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr • • .• • •
Glasgow and Greenock• • • • ..... ••••

July 1
June 28

Grand Junction
Gravesend and Rochester.. ••
Great North of England • • • • •• •• • • • •
Great Western . • • • • ..
Hull and Selby _ • • • •

Liverpool and Manchester •• •• •• •• ••
London and Birmingham . •• •• •• •• • •
London and Blackwall.• •• •• •• •• •• ••
London and Brighton. ....
London and Croydon . •• • •• •• •• •• ••
London and Greenwich ..• .• .....
London and South Western... .....
Manchester, Bolton, and Bury •• •• ••
Manchester and Birmingham•• •• .• ••
Manchester, Leeds, and Bull Assoc••
Midland Counties. ..
Newcastle and Darlington •• •• •• •• ••
Newcastle and Carlisle. •• •• •• •• •• ••
Newcastle and North 5hie1d5........
North Union and Bolton and Preston
Paris, Corbel, and 0r1ean5..........
Paris and Rouen •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

700
1,129
2,016

542
2,632
5,138
1,968
1,155
10,196

276
2,066
18,516

669
1,670
5,847
6,133

Preston and Wy-re•• •• •• •• .• •• •• •• •.
Sheffield and Manchester •• •• •• •• ••
South Eastern •• •• •• •• •• •••• •• ••
Taff Vale ..... ..................

1,730
13,319

765
6,260
1,100

Yarmouth and Norwich • • •• •• ••
York and North Midland . •• • • • • • • •

394
3,;53

5,159
18,140
1,413
4,001
556
883
7,277
836
3,245
5,533
9,932

LAW INTEL•LIGENI
HOUSE OF LORDS, .1124

CE
(y 5.

905
1,902

482
1,502
5,586
6,229

G 25
5,000
53

416
2,054

!The House sat to-day to hear writs of error; the Peers present
were the Lord Chanceller, Lord Brougham, and the Bishop of Ely.
The following judges were also in attendance :—the Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice
Patteson, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice
Wightman, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Baron
Rolfe, and Mr. Baron Platt.
THE IRISH VOCIETY V. TILE LORD 313110 P or DERRY.
Sir THOMAS WILDE resumed his arguments in this case on be-
half of the plaintiffs in error v. the' Irish Society. The question
in the case was, who had the right of presentation to certain
livings in the county of Coleraine, in the diocese of Derry—the
Irish Society or the Bishop of Derry. The case came before their
Lordships upon a writ of error from the Coust of Exchequer
Chamber in Ireland, which Court decided in favour of the right of
the Bishop of Derry. The case appears likely to occupy several days

ROLLS' COURT, July 5.
LORD NELSON V. LORD BRIDPORT.
The arguments in this part-heard case occupied his Lordship the
Master of the Rolls the whole day.

VIOE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, July 5.
No case of any importance came to-day before either of the
—,,ancellors. The Vice-Chancellor of England took causes
Vice-L. —,eellor Knight Bruce causes, petitions, and motions
the Vice-Cha, --nor Wigram short causes, unopposed petitions
and the Vice-Cham,
and causes.

COURT OF QUEE:NIS: BENCH,JuIy 5.
"".. Lord ININYAN and a
Sittings at Nisi Priug at Guildhall, befoi..
Common Jury.)

"MOWN. IiDMINISTRATIII, V. HORNER. Leech
Mr. Archbold appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. _
for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover 901. from defendant, who
had been a baker by trade, and had contracted to supply Newgate with
bread ; plaintiff's husband had been foreman in one of defendant's es-
tablishments, and was to be paid icertain sum per sack for each sack of
flour made into bread. The defendant alleged that plaintiff's husband
made only 92 instead of 06 quartern loaves from each sack. A fact
was also elicited by the evidence to the effect that a large quantity of
the fat of meat sent to be baked at a baker's is a source of profit to
him, inasmuch as that he saves it as it flows over, in order to prevent
it, wnile in a molten state, from setting fire to the oven. Alto-
gether the case appeared to be rather a complicated one.
and of no public interest whatever. Witnesses having been mi.
mined on both sides, his Lordship summed up, and read the whole of
the evidence, after which the jury retired, and returned into Court
with a verdict for the plaintiff—Dsmages, 731. 10s.

HOLLOWAY V. mowkau.

This was an action for the recovery of the keep of a horse.
It appeared from the evidence that the defendant left a horse
with the plaintiff, who lets out his land for the purpose of horses
kept at grass. The horse was left with plaintiff for 74 weeks, at
the expiration of which time he sold the horse for 114 12s 6d.,
and now brought his action for the balance of the expense of the
horse's keep, at the rate of Bs. per week, deducting the above
sum. The defendant's witnesses contended that plaintiff agreed
with the defendant to take the horse at the end of six months, for
the amount of the expense of his keep.
The jury then retired, but up to the usual hour for the adjourn.
went of the Court there was no likelihood of their agreeing to a
♦erdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 5.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Ens.)
(Special Jury cases.)
SIIAW V. CROVIII.

This was an action of trover, but the case was withdrawn, as the
parties agreed to settle it.

WINDIMRST •. DIMLY.

In this ease, in which a question was involved as to the lia-
bility of the defendant to pay for a certain steam-engine, the
parties agreed to refer the question to arbitration, subject to the
opinion of the Court upon a point reserved.
There were no other cases of any interest in either Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 5.
ROBINS V. BURKE ♦ND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the sum of 644!. odd,
for- work and labour done and prepared fur the de-
fendants. .

Mr. Jervis, with whom was Mr. Ogle, conducted the
case for the plaintiff. whilst Mr. Cockburn and Mr.
Bovill appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiff is the well-known Mr. George Robins,
the auctioneer, and the defendants, in the capacity of
trustees to some property in the county of Bucks, called
the Horsendon and Prince's Risborough Estate, applied
to him to learn his terms for selling it by auction. The
reply was, that the preliminary survey would cost
twenty guineas, that the charge for selling property of
20,0001. in value would be 1 per cent., which included
advertisements and other expenses, and that if the pro-
perty were to be bought in, then that the charge would
be fifty guineas over and above the disbursements. Upon
these terms the estate, which was veined at about
60,0001., was placed in the hands of Mr. Robins for
disposal. That gentleman instantly caused the adver-
tisements of the property to be drawn up and inserted
in the public journals. The estate was entrusted to his
care in the early part of June, 1841, and was advertised
to be sold on the 31st of August in the same year. On
the 30th of that month, however, an intimation was
given to Mr. Robins, that the necessity for the sale had
been avoided by the completion of a private sale to the Duke
of Buckingham for 60,0004 Mr. Robins, in due course
of time, sent in his account for commission, &c , amount-
ing to the sum already named. The demand was re-
jected, on the ground that the sale had been effected
without the intervention of the plaintiff, and, in truth,
that the negotiation with his Grace had been commenced
prior to the application to Mr. Robins. Finding
that there was no prospect of obtaining payment, Mr.
Robins felt himself compelled to resort to a court of law
for enforcement. The simple question stated by the
Learned Judge during the trial was, whether Mr. Rubins,
having had the property to sell nearly three months prior
to the purchase by the Duke of Buckingham, even
though he had not had anything to do, directly, in the
sale—the fact of the negotiation with his Grace having
been kept carefully from his knowledge—was not fully
entitled to his commission, just as if he had knocked it
down by public auction.
Messrs. Driver, E. Robins, Simpson, and other auc-
tbneers, gave their testimony in favour of the right and
custom to make the charge, especially where a previous
negotiation had been commenced, and was kept alive by
the vendors, without any intimation of the fact to the
auctioneers. _ _

On behalf of the defendants it was contended, that
inasmuch as that the negotiation with the Duke of Buck-
ingham had commenced before, and had been concluded
without the assistance of Mr. Robins and without a
public sale, he was not entitled to the sum charged for
commission.
The Duke of Buckingham, in his examination, stated
that he had not made the purchase in any way in conse-
quence of Mr. Robins's glowing advertisements. The
fact was, the property was contiguous to some he held,