The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-25 00:00:00

forced: He figain..set-it light; the
_clock lipin, yrent,.
and for the last time—the—clock-maker came away.
The plaintiff heard fro more of the clock until a few
days subsequently,- when it was brought to his door
by a carter. He refused to take it in, and the carter
conveyed- it back to Boughton. The - defendant,
however, told him to carry it once more to the plain-
tiff, and if he did not receive it, to leave it in the
street. The carter accordingly took it again to the
plaintiff; the latter refused to adMit it ; the carter
set it down in the street. The Reverend defendant
refused to pay for it, and consequently Mr. Capell
instructed his attorney, Mr. Sutton, to bring this

action.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2/. 9s. 6d.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS COURT, JULY 24.

JUDGMENT.-YULLEIL AND WILLIS
This unfortunate case, as it was called by his
lloNourt, has been in course of litigation for about
30 years. It has been several times heard, and a
decree was made in the case by the late Lord Gifford.
It appeared that Mr. Peak Fuller had been the
proprietor of an estate in Jamaica, which he mort-
gaged to Messrs. Willis and Waterhouse. As Mr.
Fuller proved to be but an indifferent manager of
his own estate, he engaged a person of the name of
Queenborough to manage it for him, as his agent.
Mr. Fuller dying some time after, Queenborough.
continued in the management-of the estate; and as
the executors of Mr. Fuller had declitied, or were
incapable of acting, Mr. Waterhouse, one of the
mortgagees, and the principal creditor of Fuller, ap-
plied that administration mightbegranted to him and
Queenborough, which was accordingly. granted. In
the following year, a bill was filed in the Court of
Chancery in Jamaica, praying an account of the
management of the estates of Mr. Fuller. This
suit professed to be instituted for the benefit of
Mr. Fuller's family, and was carried on in their name.
His Honour, was, however, of opinion that it A a
what a Court of Equity calls a fraudulent suit,- and
instituted in the view of giving the estate absolutely
into the possession of the mortgagee. In 1807,
Willis filed a bill of foreclosure; but it appeared
that at that time he was not the owner of the mort-
gage. The Government having at that period made
an advance of Exchequer bills to relieve commerce,
Willis obtained part of the public relief, and Sir
Francis Baring having become his security, received
from him an assignment of this mortgage. The
effect of the decision of the Court of Chancery in
Jamaica was, to give the absolute controul of the
estate to the mortgagee, whilst in his accounts he
was only answerable to a person who was his own
agent. The effect of Lord Gifford's decree was to
confirm the proceedings in the Court below, and
his Honour felt bound to say, that considering the
view which Lord Gifford took of the facts, nothing
could be more just than his decision. The other
avocations of the Noble Lord had, however, pre-
vented him from bestowing upon them that atten-
tion which his Honour had time to give the
case. His Honour, therefore, altered the decree
made by his predecessor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, itity 24.
CODNER V. BOTHWELL.
This was an action by the owner of the Sylph, a
vessel of 125 tons burden, again'st the defendant, a
merchant of Liverpool, upon a charter-party of
r►ffreightment, to recover a balance of 6401. The
charter-party was dated the 6th of April, 1825, and

was for six months certain, and on certain cone

gencies, for a further period not exceeding six
months, at 1251. per month. The ship sailed with
her cargo on the 28th of August from Liverpool to
Smyrna, where she arrived in the beginning of Oc-
tober, and again set sail on the 31st of October, and
came back to. Liverpool on the 14th of February,
1826. The six months from August to February
amounted to 750/. The plaintiff had received 1101.,
and for the balance the action was brought.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 6401.

lIEBBLETIMAITE AGAINST ABUD AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover of the defendants,
who are gold refiners, in Clerkenwell, the sum of
2,305/. 75., the price of 598 ounces of gold.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The
plaintiff was a Portuguese merchant, who was in the
habit of transmitting bullion to Mr. Thomas Hurst,
his known agent. The defendants were very 'inti-
mate with Hurst, and had frequently purchased of
him, as the plaintiff's, agent, bullion whiCh they
knew to be the property of the plaintiff. On Satur-•
day the 4th of February, 1826, Mr. Hurst sold and
delivered to the defendants .the gold in question,
which' had been consigned to him by the plaintiff.
It was sold for ready money ; but the defendants
said that they did not know how they stood at their
banker's, and could not then give a cheque for the
price,,but promised to send one on the Monday fol-
lowing. They never sent the cheque, and they now
mean to set off a demand they have against Hurst ;
but as they knew he was the plaintiff's agent, they
cannot do so. HurSt is a bookseller, not a dealer in
bullion. The set-off is, that Hurst wag their guaran-
tee for the amount of certain bills of Messrs. Hurst
and Robinson, booksellers, to which they lent their
endorsement, and which have been dishonoured.
William Jones was clerk of Longman, Hurst, and
Co.,
.booksellers. Thomas Hurst was one of the
firm. He used to receive remittances of bullion from
the plaintiff, and used to employ witness to dispose
of it. In the beginning of last year 598 ounces ofl
gold arrived. Witness had orders to dispose of it
to meet some draughts Hurst had accepted for the
plaintiff. On Saturday, Feb. 4; he sold it to the
defendants for 2,308/. 7s. A bill on Hurst for
1,500/., which fell diie in the middle of January,
had been taken up by a Mr. Duncombe, and witness
was to pay him. Witness, at the time of the sale,
very pressingly requested to have the money. Mr.
William Abud said it was not then convenient, for
lie did not know how he stood at his. banker's, but
he would positively send a cheque on Monday, at 12.
Witness had, in his intercourse with the defendants,
frequently mentioned the plaintiff's name, and the
defendants knew Hurst was his agent. -'On the
Monday witness sent for the cheque. Becket, the
messenger, came without it. Witness went the next
day, and pressed William Abud very much for the
money. He then said he could not give. it on ac-
count of the engagements Hurst was under to him.
Mr. GURNEY said the defendants conceived they
had a right to retain the money from Hurst, who
Was certainly the apparent, and they believed the
real .owner.- Hurst had applied to the defendants
to advance Messrs. Hurst and Robinson 10,000/..;
the defendants asked him to .endorse the bills, and
they would ; he refused to do this because it. was
contrary to his articles with Longman and Co. but
gave his guarantee for advances not exceeding
10,0001. The defendants in consequence set their
names to four bills for 2,500/. each at different
dates, and the first of these was due and dishonour-
ed at the time of this transaction. The defendants
knew nothing of the plaintiff, and their clerks
would prove that on the former occasions they al-
ways thought the gold was Hurst's property.
John' Davis Sutcliffe' clerk of the defendantsge-
nerally transacted the ge-
nerally business of the gold with
Jones—did so, at least thirty times. Never heard
the plaintiff's -name mentioned as the owner. Wit-
ness proved, that on the 4th of February, two of the
bills .mentioned by Mr. Gurney were returned to
the defendants.
Robert .Sutcliffe proved the guarantee; it •was
dated 25th of November, 1825. Duncombe, Jones,
and .Mr.• Richardson, the plaintiff's. attorney, came
on Wednesday, when Duncomheilennurded the gold
as his ...iproperty, and threatened to take wit-
ness before ,a-magtstrate unless he had, the gold or
the: money. The. plaintiff's, name • was not then
mentioned. Richardson came again at four o'clock,
and then claimed the gold as the plaintiff's property.
• Lord TENTERDEN said, the bills of lading proved
the gold- to have been •the•property of the plaintiff,
and there was• nothing in the defendant's evidence
to disprove it. ••
.Verdict-for-the plaintiff—Damages, 2,308/. 75.