The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 1.
iLII.VAGE.--.IIORNE V. BTFORD.
It appeared from the statement of counsel in this case,
which was an action taken by the plaintiff for the recovery
of 26/., for work and labour done for the defendant, the de-
fendant was the owner of vessels, in which he
was in the habit of getting up cargoes of fish
for the London market. In February last one of his vessels,
the Princess Victoria, was coming up with a cargo of fish for
the Billingsgate-market, when a squall coming on she was
upset in Gallion's reach, and sunk, when, unfortunately,
three of defendant's sons, and one of the crew, were drowned.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant to raise the vessel, as he
is what is called an "under waterman." The operation was
rather a difficult and expensive one, particularly in winter;
the vessel was sunk in 22 feet water at low water, near a
place called "Du Val's house," or as the witness called it,
" The Devil's house." Seven men were employed, and the
vessel was raised after a good deal of labour and a valuable
rope having been broken. The cargo was sold by defendant,
but be refused to pay plaintiff's demand, 26/., and offered
51., but had now paid 12/. into Court.
Captain Fisher, harbour-master, was called in, and said he
had considered well the whole case of the sinking and sal-
vage. It would have been a fair price to charge 21/. for rais-
ing the vessel and taking out the fish. The weather was
very rough, wind north-west, which should be taken into
consideration.
Mr. CLARKSON, for the defence, said the present was a
most distressing case, as he was informed. The defendant, a
poor Barking fisherman, had gone, as his business led him, to
sea in his hatch-boat, to fetch from the sea-going smacks a
cargo of fish. his boat was only 18 tons burden, and his
remuneration for taking the ship to Billingsgate was from
11. to 255. only. When coming up a violent gust of wind
sunk the boat. Two of his sons were washed overboard and
lost, the third being below at the time was drowned there, and
went down with the boat in deep water. A fourth man, Leach,
crawled along the bowsprit as the boat went down and took
the water, where he remained till picked up by a passing
lighter. Horne passed the lighter, and was asked to tell
the defendant that the boat had gone down and his sons
were lost, which Horne did, and engaged to raise the boat
for him as cheap as if he were his brother. Having no
proper crew, ropes, barge, or kedges, he was obliged to bor-
row them, and then he knew so little of his business, that
seven men were omployed for three days doing what might
have been done in a tide, and that was the only reason or
colour for a demand of 211. The witnesses in the case for the
plaintiff were here so many different plaintiffs, as it were
suing Byford, and swearing in their own case. It was said
the fish had been saved, cleaned, and brought to market, and
fetched a good price. If that had been true, the defendant
had no interest in that ; he was only a carrier, and had lost
his freight ; but so far from that being so, the owner lost
60,.by the fish becoming stale and not reaching Billingsgate
till Saturday afternoon, two days too late. The case was
rendered harder by the plaintiff suing out a writ against the
defendant the very day that the letter of demand—a demand
general and undefined—specifying no sum, actually reached
the poor fisherman in the midst of his suffeiings for his ag-
gravated losses.
After a great deal of conflicting evidence for the defence
had been adduced,
Lord DENMAN summed up. He regretted that the at-
torney here employed for the plaintiff should have issued the
writ so hastily, as if a poor man who had experienced so
heavy a loss both in pocket and in his feelings in consequence
of the heavy bereavement suffered through the loss of his
children, ought to make his mind up as to the amount to be
paid for the salvage as soon as demanded. In leaving the
case to the jury, he begged to observe that the payment of
12/. into Court oyiiit not to be taken as an admission by the
defendant that sr much was due. The question of the
amount due for the work and labour done was still quite
open to the jury, notwithstanding the defendant had paid
into Court a sum he thought enough to cover all that might,
upon the trial, be charged and proved, so as not to be in-
volved in unnecessary expense.
After retiring for six hours, the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 15/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 2.
Sittings after Term, before the LORD CHIEF BArtos and a
Common Jury.)
TAYLOR V. SOLLEY.

This was an action of debt for work and labour done,
and money paid and laid out to the use of the defendant,
to which the defendant had pleaded that, except as to
101. 10s., he never was indebted, and that sum he paid into
Court. The plaintiff replied that he was indebted in a
larger amount, and upon that replication issue was joined.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Petersdorf appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Smith for the defendant.

Mr. CROWDER stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff
was an auctioneer and house-agent, carrying on business
in Grosvenor-street, and the defendant was a gentleman of
property, who in the beginning of this year married Lady
Sykes, the widow of the late Sir Francis Sykes. The action
was brought to recover 331. 45., for business transacted by
the plaintiff in respect of a house which was the property of
Lady Sykes, and which she was desirous of disposing of.
The jury were no doubt acquainted with the ordinary busi-
ness of an auctioneer and estate-agent. It was to find
a customer for a seller, and a seller for a purchaser. Lady
Sykes was the lessee f the house No. 6, Grosvenor-street,
and early in February last she applied to the plaintiff, ac-
companied by her husband, Mr. Solley, to let it for her fur-
nished. The plaintiff undertook to use his best endeavours
to do so, and sent two of his sien to take an inventory of the
numiture, inserted an advertisement in the newspapers, and,
in fact, took all the ordinary steps for letting the house. In
March, the house not having been let owing to the terms
being too high, Lady Sykes took it into her head to let the
house unfurnished, but the terms she demanded being still
exorbitant, the plaintiff was unable to let the house. Lady
Sykes then determined upon selling the lease, and the
plaintiff took the usual steps to dispose of it; but in the
month of June the plaintiff suddenly received a letter from
Lady Sykes, to the effect that she had commissioned Mr.
Phillips to sell the lease of her house on the 20th of Jane,
unless it was previously disposed of by private contract. The
price asked for the lease was 4501., but the highest offer the
plaintiff had succeeded in getting for it when he received
this note was 3001., which was made by Mr. Vaughan, a
builder. The plaintiff sent this gentleman to Mr. Phillips'
sale, and he ultimately 'became the purchaser of the lease.
The plaintiff therefore claimed his commission on the sale,
Mr. Vaughan having obtained the information of the lease in
the first instance from his offices ; but the defendant refused
to pay it, and the result was the present action.
Evidence having been adduced to prove the business done,
and the reasonableness of the prices charged for it,
Mr. V. WILLIAMS addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that the ten guineas which had been paid into
Court was an ample remuneration for the trouble the
plaintiff had been put to. The plaintiff did not dispose of the
lease, because it was taken out of his hands before he could
do so, nor did he give Mr. Vaughan the first information
that it was to be disposed of. All that he did was to tell
Mr. Vaughan the terms, and Mr. Vaughan afterwards at-
tended a sale, which was announced by public hand-bills
and advertisements, where he bid the highest sum, and the
lease was knocked down to him in the usual form.

The LORD CIIIEF BARON, in summing up, remarked that
there was no evidence to show that the lease had been dis-
posed of through the instrumentality of the plaintiff; on the
contrary, it was admitted that before he could dispose of it
as an estate-agent, it was taken out of his hands, and in law
therefore, he was not entitled to recover commission on the
sale.

The jury appeared to differ with his Lordship, and wished
to return a verdict for the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the jury would forgive him
for telling them that there was no evidence upon which they
could find a verdict for the plaintiff beyond 10/.103., the
amount paid into Court.
The jury under these circumstances found a verdict for the
defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 2.
Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and
a Special Jury. )
CLARK V. DUNSFORD.

This was an action for crim. con., which occupied the
Court the whole day, and in which the case for the plaintiff
was not concluded when we went to press.

COURT OF REVIEW, Jan. 2.
(Before Vice Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
ARBOUIN e. ILEAY.I
The plaintiff appeared on petition, praying to be allowed to
prove against the separate estate of John Reay, sen. Goods
were sold and delivered to John Reay, sen., and Co., and the
usual contract for the debt was framed in the name of that
firm ; but it turns out after bankruptcy that the only other
nominal partner is John Robert Reay, nephew to the other,
whose interest in the concern, if interest it might be tailed,
amounted only to this, that the nephew, previously clerk and
salesman, received, in consequence of a promise
by the uncle to take him into the business, a
contract to the effect that he should receive a fixed
amount out of the pt olits of the business, besides cer-
tain allowances for expenses, the nephew continuing town•
salesman, and being unaffected by the debts or profits of the
company. It was, therefore, contended on the part of the
petitioner, that he had a right, by all the cases in the books,
to prove against the separate estate of the elder Reay. The
case excited very great interest among the gentlemen of the
bar.

When arguments were heard, his HONOUR felt it was a
case of difficulty as well as importance, and on all the cases
cited, he could not decide that John Reay, sen. is separately
indebted, feeling he could do no more than give an opportu-
nity of bringing an action at law.
It was finally arranged that the bankrupts should bring an
action, that there should be a plea of abatement on the part
of the creditor, Mr. Arbouin, and that one or both of the bank-
rupts might be examined as witnesses.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 2.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD. )
IN RE YEOMAN.
In this case the insolvent was opposed on the ground that
he had not Inserted the whole of his debts in the schedule.
The insolvent admitted that from one of his creditors he had
receiveo, goods to the value of 20/. more than he had put
dowb, having given a bill of exchange for the amount.
The SOLICITOR contended that the giving the bill did not
relieve insolvent from the debt—he was either debtor for the
goods or the bill.

- Mr. HuGnEs, for the insolvent, urged that the acceptance
of a bill was a discharge of the debt, although subsequently
the debtor might become liable on the bill if it was dis-
honoured. It was precisely the same as paying a bank
bill or note—say of a country bank—which was clearly re-
ceived in satisfaction of the debt at the time, and if it was
kept by for some time, and then the bank broke, the debtors
were neither liable nor blameable. In this case the insolvent
had endorsed the bill, but, supposing the rules as to present-
ment and notice were not followed out, he would be dis-
charged from his responsibility.
The opposing SOLICITOR said that, however the nature of the
liability was changed from the goods to the bill, yet it was
clear that the Act contemplated that the full amount of the
debts and liabilities might be inserted; if, on the contrary, the
mere giving a bill would reduce the debt, any friendly cre-
ditor might receive a bill, and so reduce the amount of a
trader's debts from a large amount to below the 3001. He
also urged that in bankruptcy creditors might prove on
undue bills and collateral securities.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, that in that case they
were carrying out specific directions. In cases of insolvency,
like the present, the Act did not require that liabilities should
be entered, it distinctly mentioned " debts." It was clear
that at the utmost there was only a contingent liability, who
was to say that the bill would not be honoured 1 Under the
circumstances, he had no hesitation in saying that there was
no debt, and that in this instance the schedule was correct.
Thi a objection, the first of the kind raised, was overruled.
Co;

' - _INVERSIONS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
—The Rev. Messrs. Glennie, Marshall, and Coape three cler-
gymen of the Church of England, were on
Wednesday last
received into the Roman Catholic Church, at St. Mary's
College, Oscott. The former is a member of
Tnnity College,
Cambridge; the latter are of Oxford. Mr. C. Woodmason,
son of Mr. Woodmason, of Littlemore (who with his lady
admitted at the same
thi amde be3enir.pGreivenniouieslywasrec,
weievebed)R,
ewvea:
beneficed
in
the
diocese
of Exeter.