The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-13 00:00:00

DOGGETT V. EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The
question in the cause was in substance, whether in
June, 1838, the plaintiff, John Doggett, represented
to Mr. Tite, the defendants' surveyor and one of their
agents, that the property in Gloucester-court, adjoin-
ing and occupied by the plaintiff, together and in
connection with John Doggett's freehold property in
High-street, Shoreditch, was his part of the latter
property or otherwise the freehold property, or wholly
as to five-sixths, of John Doggett, who in truth had
only five-sixths of the High-street property. The
plaintiff asserted, and the defendants denied this ; the
allegation.of the defendants, contradicted by the plain-
tiff, being that through such a representation the de-
fendants, believing themselves to be buying of John
Doggett the fee-simple of five-sixths of the whole of
what the plaintiff occupied, agreed to give a price
upon that footing, which the plaintiff desired to apply
to five-sixths of the High-street property only. The
true was not always the proper, but to such benefit
as belonged to the observation that what the defendants
alleged in this respect was unlikely to have happened,
the plaintiff was entitled. There was an absence of
probability, certainly, in the defendants' case, it being
clear, upon the evidence, that this Company, through
their proper agent or agents, had, before June, 1838,
distinct notice that that part of the property occupied
by the plaintiff, which was in Gloucester-court, be-
longed to the plaintiff; that it was held by the plain-
tiff and Mr. Teel, Mr. Teel being the acting ma-
nager of the Gloucester-court property, and also been
concerned, previously, as a manager for the plaintiff
in the dealings between him and the Company. The
duty of the Directors required that Mr. Tite should,
before he valued the property in question, be made ac-
quainted with what the Company knew upon the sub-
ject; it must be considered extraordinary, in a high
degree, if, in the month of June, 1838, John Doggett
had, with any fraudulent or unfair design, represented
to Mr. Tite a circumstance so notoriously untrue as
that the Gloucester-court property, so occupied by
the plaintiff, was, as to the whole or any
part of it, the freehold estate of John Dog-
gett. He could have had no rational hope of
deceiving the Company; he did not appear to have
had any ground for supposing that Mr. Tite was
ignorant of the fact. Still if it were satisfactorily
proved that John Doggett had committed the fraud
imputed to him, the defendants would be entitled
to his decision on that occasion, notwithstand-
ing the conduct of their Directors or their agents.
That conduct, however, formed only a part of the evi-
dence upon which he considered that the case of fraud
had failed. It was remarkable, considering what Mr.
Oram and Mr. Wm. 11. Doggett had deposed, that Mr.
Teel, a witness in the cause, had not been examined
as to any thing which had taken place since June,
1838. Not forgetting what Mr. Tite had sworn, or
having any reason to suppose him otherwise than re-
spectable, he did not believe that the fraud alleged
had been either committed or attempted; he did not
believe that John Doggett had any dishonest or un-
fair intention, or that he had made any inaccurate
representation to Mr. Tite ; and if a case of error
without fraud was open to the defendants, he was not
satisfied that a case of error or mistake, which
it was important to the defendants so to cha-
racterise, had been established. Being of opinion
that upon the grounds before him a case for resisting
the plaintiff's claims for specific performance had nut
been established, he had considered whether it would
be proper to direct further inquiry before a jury or
otherwise ; and looking to all the circumstances, not
excluding from his consideration that the amount in
dispute was only 4001., he was upon the whole of
opinion that it was his duty to dispose of the cause,
thereby decreeing specific performance of the agree-
ment of September, 1838, with costs to the present
time, against the defendants.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 12.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at the Guildhall, in the City
of London, before Lord DErrmaN and a London
Common Jury.)

GODBOLD V. SLAGIUY _AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by Edward Godbold
againit the sheriffs of Middlesex and their officers,

to recover damages for an arrest and false imprison-
ment. It appeared from the evidence that a writ of
ca. sa. had been sued out against one John Godbold,
and had been confided to Luckett, an officer of the
Sheriff of Middlesex for execution. The officer,
however, arrested Edward Godbold, the present plain-
tiff, instead of his brother John Godbold. The plain-
tiff was detained in custody for some hours, and l.ad
brought the present action in consequence.
• In the defence it was contended that Edward God-
bold had voluntarily sought the officer, and had re-
presented himself to be John Godbold, the man
against whom the writ had been issued, for the pur-
pose of deluding the officer, and enabling John God-
bold to escape.
Mr. Whateley conducted the case for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Platt for defendants.
Several witnesses were examined on b )th s'des.
The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff—Damages,lol.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 12.
The Court this morning disposed of some unde-
fended and other actions, which presented no feature
of the slightest interest or iniportance.

HOWARD V. ASHTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a w3Ol
merchant, to recover the sum of 341. 9s. for wool, al-
leged to have been sold to the defendant, a hat manu-
facturer, on his own account ; the defence being that
Mr. Ashton gave the order to the plaintift's agent
for the film of Bowler and Jarrett, lately engaged in
the hat manufacture, in Southwark, who have
since failed. For the plaintiff, a young man, named
Richardson, his apprentice, and another, deposed
that Mr. Ashton gave the order to the former on his,
defendant's, own account, making no mention of
Bowler's name until after the purchase, when (it was
admitted) he directed the parcels to be addressed to
that firm. For the defence a letter from the plaintiff's
firm in Rochfort, addressed to Bowler and Jarratt, and
enclosing an invoice made outin their name was put in.
Mr.Jarrat also was called, and stated that Ashton showed
him samples of the wool in question, saying that he
wished to get an order to serve young Mr. Richard-
son, who was a friend of his son's. The witness
liked the sample, and consented to take two bales,
which Ashton agreed to order for him, and they
were received accordingly. Sometime afterwards the
plaintiff and Richardson called on him to inquire
how he liked the wool, when he told them it did very
well, but he had used but little of -it, and hoped they
did not expect the money soon. Howard replied
that it was not yet due, but in the proper time he
would apply. Witness considered the goods as
bought for him solely. Mr. Bowler was dead at the
time, though the business was carried on under the
old name up to the t;me of the bankruptcy.
The COURT directed that if they believed the evi-
dence of Richardson, the servant of the plaintiff, and
that of the elder Richardson, his father, that the de-
fendant first ordered the goods as for himself, and
afterwards, in directing them to Jarratt, said that he
and that firm could take them between them, they
must find for the plaintiff.
The Jury retired, and after a short deliberation,
found for the defendant.