The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-20 00:00:00

BAIL COURT, Nov. 19.

(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
JEFFERIES v. THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY'S

TREASURY.
Mr. JARVIS, Q.O , applied to the Court for a rule to show
cause why the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Trea-
sury should not grant compensation to Mr. Jefferies for the
loss of certain fees which had been abolished by Act of Par-
liament, and which he had received by virtue of his office as
clerk to the Court of Common Pleas of her Majesty's
Treasury. The Learned Gentleman stated that the office of
clerk had been held in Mr. Jefferies' family for more than
seventy years. The fees he received were divided into four
classes. The first was a deduction which he was entitled to
make from certain fees payable to the Lord Chief Justice,
and which yielded about 601. per annum. The second and
third were comprised in a fee of 6d., which he received for
sealing records ; and the fourth was a fee of ls. for
endorsing and making up records after the decision of the
jury. By the 35th chapter of the Ist and 2d William IV., it
was enacted that the offices of persons who held them at
pleasure, or for a long term of years, should be regarded as
matters of right, and that compensation should be made ac-
cordingly. The. Commissioners who were appointed by that
I Act to report upon the fees and the right of persons weaving

sth section of the Company's Act was, that they should
execute their works as they should see fit, but with as little
damage as possible to private-property ; and in the event
of their causing. such damage, they should, if unable to
settle it otherwise, issue a warrant to the sheriff of the
county in which such damage occurred, to call a
jury and assess the damages. By the 35th section of
the Act, it is enacted that the Company shall not be
obliged to receive any complaint concerning any private loss
sustained, unless such complaint should be made by or on
behalf of the corporation of the place where such damage
is received, in a written form, thirty days before the sum-
moning of the jury, and within the space of two months
after such damage shall have been received. His application
was on behalf of Mr. Coles Child, who carried on business as a
coal merchant at Belvidere Wharf. In 1842 the erection ofthe
bridge commenced. In September of that year an excava-
tion was made for the pier of the bridge, which excavation
ran under Mr. Child's premises, causing a settlement of the
building and several cracks in the walls. On the 10th of
g
t:ShBeia4cpt3kt:eahnofetntibeneer
irwos,
feahratidhelsfeei
set
walls
nairii,
went
.tsefotenailtt:i
on,
pn,chdttehataehngef
aianpicnrtt , was sent to the Secre-
tary of the Company. On the 16th an answer was received,
stating that the application would be attended to. Mr. Chad-
Mr. Coles that no further settlement would take place. Finding
who declined any further interference. On the 12th of May,
circum-
stance was sent to the Company, whoeiwmmartaiotetirnteonontsfhdhteohhrCeet:masl.ppsuatnrhe3
premises in a temporary manner, and then left them. In.
February, 1844, the works ceased, and Mr. Childs had a sur-
vey made and a list of the damage sent to the Company, with a
request that they would either repair them or send a suffi-
cient amount to do so. After this things remained in statu
quo until the 12th of February, 1845, when Mr. Coles at-
tempted to recover damages by an action, but as such a pro-
ceeding was not compatible with the Act ofthe Company, he
was compelled to abandon it. In May another portion
of the walls fell ; and in June a formal claim
was made on the Company for damages received.
In August an answer was received declining to pay the
damages, or to issue a warrant to assemble a jury to assess
them, as the application was not made within the time re-
quired by the Act.
Mr. Justice ParrEsox said he did not think payment
would be withheld on such grounds. Arnie for a mandamus
would, he thought, best meet the case.
Rule granted accordingly.

COURT OF REVIEW, No. 19.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HASTINGS V. DOBBS.

The attention of the Court was occupied throughout the
day with, questions of form ; the other cases on the paper
above this case were ordered to stand over.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 19.
(Sittings in Banco.)
SUTCLIFF V. BROOK.

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as
assignee of an insolvent debtor, to recover from the defendant
a particular sum of money, which was the result of a mutual
arbitration. The declaration made the cause an action of
debt upon the submission or agreement to abide by the award
in question, and the defendant had demurred to this part of
the declaration, on the ground that it was bad in law.
Mr. ATHERTON now appeared to auport the demurrer. His
first objection was to the form of action, for their Lordships
would perceive that this was not an action upon till,
award, but an action of debt, founded upon a mutual
promise between the plaintiff and the defendant
to abide by a prospective award ; and he submitted that the
form of pleading was contrary to precedent, and contrary to
principle. There were three forms of remedy for a plaintiff
in a case like the present, and those forms were stated in
Mr. Watson's book upon awards. The first was debt upon
the award, debt on bond or contract for the due performance
of the award, and covenant or assumpsit on deed of submis-
sion, and the existing precedents showed only these forms
of action, and therefore he contended that the tdeclaration
was contrary to president. Now with respect to its being
contrary to principle. The principle he took to be this :—an
action of debt or assumpsit would lie upon a parole or un-
sealed contract, provided such contract contained a
promise to pays specific sum of money, and hence an
action of debt would lie on the award if it required
one of the parties to pay a particular sum of money. Now
as the contract upon which this action of debt was
brought contained no promise to pay a specific sum of money,
he contended that the declaration was contrary to prin-
ciple. There was another objection to the declaration. It
did not show that the plaintiff agreed to the reference with
the consent of three-fourthe of the insolvent's creditors, in
aCcordance with the provision. of 1 and 2 Victoria.
Mr. COWLING supported the declaration. With regard to
the last objection, the Act of Parliament had been held by
the Court to be only directory, and therefore the omission.
complained of died not invalidate the reference. With regard
to the other objection, that the cause of action was erroneous,
he apprehended that it was not. True it was an action upon
the submission, but it 1,-as coupled with the award itself.
His Learned Friend was wrong when he said there were no
precedents upon this point, for if he bad looked into Chitty
on Pleadings, page 24, he would have found the form of
a declaration precisely similar to the one in the present
case
The COURT ultimately ruled that the demurrer was good,
and directed the declaration to be so amended that it should
be simply an action of debt upon the award only, leaving
the submission out of the question altogether.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 19.
(Sitting in Banco. )
Their Lordships this day took the demurrer paper, the ar-
guments upon which were wholly destitute of popular interest.

(Nisi Prizes.)
Mr. Justice Cresswell sat at nisi prius, with a Middlesex
common j ury, in the Guildhall, Westminster, and was occu-
pied the whole morning with an action for illegal distress.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Nov. 18.
(Before Mr. Secondary Purr En.)
AUSTIN AND ANOTHER V. PONT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are share-
brokers, Bank-chambers, to recover the sum of 151., money
paid in error on a sale of some railway shares ; the defendant
is a tradesman in the Borough. The defendant pleaded the
general issue.
The plaintiffs' clerk was called to prove that he made out
the papers of the sale of fifteen East India shares. They were
sent by the defendant for immediate sale. They were sent
on the Ist of August to Messrs. Wilkinson at 1i premium,
which was a mistake, as the price was only a quarter, and the
money was returned to them. Defendant, on being applied
to, said they might deduct the amount from the produce of the
next shares he had to dispose of, which would be in a few
days. He could not remember the price of the day, but knew
what it was the day before and the day afterwards.
Messrs. Wilkinson's clerk was called and proved the sale
and return of the money to him.
The defendant's solicitor contended that the action could
bad no n oas
rightthe
not be maintained, as the buying and selling of shares in this
manner was illegal.
The SECONDARY—I don't think it turns now en thus
pleadings, after an admission and promise to pay.
plaTinhteiffdheafdenadeatnute'lslyatrteoerneiveyed tthhene
money,conte
to pay it back or allow the contract without the consent of
their principal ; besides there had not been any evidence sate
the price of the day.
The SECONDARY said it would have been better to have
had clearer evidence on that point.—Verdict for plaintiff.
theynd e d
The defendant's attorney then moved that the wit should
be stayed.
The SECONDARY said that he could not do that, but he
would take at ote of the objections made, and dttfenda.nt,
might apply a judge.

A RAILWAY RACE.—A railway race is a suffioiently
exciting and interesting event ; but it is rarely witness ed, and
scarcely ever in perfect safety. Between a pair of well-
matched locomotives it would be sufficiently exciting; but
between a new system, like the atmospheric, and its rival,
the locomotive, the character and reputation of both sye-
tweemres
lkyfuoerspeed depending upon the issue, a well-matched
contest would be of no common interest. In this case we
enough to see such a race; and we believe that
any of our readers who leave London-bridge station a':
twenty minutes past two, and take an atmospheric ticket,
may do the same. We were standing at the Forest-hill
station, preparing to start, when it was announced. that the
Dover express train was in sight ! Immediately we (the
atmospheric) made preparations to start, and were just in
to act of starting from rest when the locomotive train
R, sled " past us at probably some thirty-five miles an
hour. We started, but before we got into motion at any'
velocity,
Dover train was a mile a-head of us, and was
evidently gaini:2s rapidly in speed. However, on we went
like a whirlwind, az.ld it awl became evident we were gaining
on our rival. Three or four minutes decided the race. We
passed tha express train at a ,rate exceeding her own by fif-
teen or twenty miles an hour. Our velocitv could not be
less than sixty miles an hour.
lly
maintained, and we were over the
wasigl 'teer a viaductnd a steadily
acdoinl y-
siderably beyond it before the Dover l'eached it. But consi-
orvuesnd thaantdt the jhoeunr nwe ;
consi-
derably before this time, the brakes were put on, and the
vacuum destroyed by the valve, to avoid danger in running
tsch'f'an it 1164 frequently
reachedua sp oanw,thhocel
erwohyoarddkomnoceiennup6rirdmnintilnotuhrteeessiihimtawrepa
been performed in.—Railway Chronicle.
OFFENCES IN THE PARKS DURING TILE PAST
MoYru.—On Tuesday the usual monthly statement as orde red
by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was posted at
all the principal Park entrances, from which it appears t hat
only two persons have been convicted during October, and
who were fined in small Sums fbr damaging the trees in Ken-
;aeon-gardens.