The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-08-23 00:00:00

ROWLINSON AND OTHERS V. CA INS

Mr. Alexander appeared fbi-the plaintiff, and the Attorney-
General for the defence.
The plaintiffs in this 'ease are Messrs. Rovelinson and Co.,
attorneys, at Liverpool, and the action was brought to recover
the anipeunt of their bill of costs (£199 75.) for work and ser-
vices done, and if his lordship should be of opinion more was
recoverable, it not having been duly entered upon the record, also
a sum of £97, a balance on the general account. The defendant,
Mr. Cains, was formerly a glass merchant and a person of some
property; but, in consequence of embarrassments, his affairs had
become involved, his property was mortgaged and he got him-
self into the Gazette. The learned counsel then entered into a
full explanation of the affairs of the defendant from 1810, froni
which it appeared that the plaintiffs undertook to guarantee to
the creditors the payment of ss. in the pound, and to arrange
his affairs on having the title deeds of the defendants' property,
which was mortgaged to about' £2,600, placed in'their posses-
sion as security, and which property it appeared was worth con-
siderably more. The plaintiffs paid the ss. in the pound and
arranged the defendant's affairs when it appeared that the se-
curity in their possession was not able to cover the amount of
their payments and their professionalcharges, and they finally en-
toted an action fur their professional charges for £199, and sub-
sequently applied to alter the record and enter the £97, money
paid by them out of pocket; but, as that would have thrown
them over the assizes, they preferred bringing the action now
for this bill, and leaving the other matter to his lordship.
Witnesses were called to prove the serving of the bill, and
Mr. Bardswell was called to prove the reasonableness of the
bill of professional charges of £199 odd, which he pronounced
to be very reasonable, and, with the exception of five or six
pounds, perfectly fair, supposing the work to have been done.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL pointed out one or two items charged
twice over, one for £6 odd, which was immediately allowed.
The learned counsel then put in a balance sheet of accounts
between the. plaintiff and the defendant, from' which it appeared
that the plaintiffs admitted being in the receipt of moneys of
the defendant which more than covered all they had against
him, and left a balance in favour of the defendant of £4. The
Attorney-General raised another objection, that Howard and
Gusset, the clients cube plaintiffs who hart advanced the money
on the defendant's property through the plaintiffs; had had the
plaintiffs' interest in the property of the defendant transferred
to them, and had given notice of action to the defendant for the
atnount, and that this amount (£1,800) wasnne of the items on
the balance sheet of the plaintiffs whiCh they. now sought to
recover, which was in effect to make defendant pay the amount
twice over.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in reply, contended that the plaintiffs were
the agents of Gusset and Howard, and that it was a juggle anti
special pleading 'on the part of the defendant to say that he
was responsible for-the money to any other than they. The
plaintiffs, being responsible to their clients, Howard and Gosset,
for the amount.
His LORDSHIP, in summing, up, said, notwithstanding the
energy with
,which Mr. Alexander had addressed the jury on
behalf of the plaintiffi, a verdict most go against them. The
plaintiff made a demand to recover £199 6s. lid., for work done,
to which the defendants replied that the plaintiffs had received
money which overtopped this demand. It appeared that they
admitted the receipt of three sums, amounting to £2600, and
though the money nright be jeQtly.paid and more, there did not
-appear in evidenee any-aiiitiority to theM from the defendants
to pay this money, and therefore they were accountable.
The jury, after an absence of an hour, found a verdict for the
plaintiff,. damages £195.

ROE V. WEBB.-JOINT STOCK SHARES.

Mr. Alexander Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wightman, and Mr. Cowling for the
defence.
• This was an action to recover the difference of value of certain
shares in the Ulster Railway, purchased by the defendant when
the shares were at a premium of £7, and refused by him after-
wards when they had deteriorated i❑ value to 255. premium.

The defendant's case was cpened first.
Mr. CaesswEt.r. said •he opened the defendant's case first,
because the declaratipn stated the contract of sale to be subject
to a condition. This action arose out of the speculating mania
which was rife in last spring. He understood the same custom
prevailed in the purchase of these shares as had held in London
for some time, which he should bring witnesses to prove. That
method was, to get a letter first allotting the number of .shares
on an application, on which a deposit was generally paid to pay
the preliminary expenses of originating the scheme, Whatever
it might be. On the payment of the deposit a receipt is given
as a guarantee, to hand over when the shares are.delivered, that
the deposit has been paid; and that every contract made for
shares of this description was always considered as subject to
This. He understood that the same usage prevailed in Liverpool,
whether or not would be proved in evidence. At all events the
defendant supposed that he had made his contractsubject to that
tsage ; and, accordingly, when the Ulster Railway scheme was
brought out, long before the act of parliament for it passed, he
made a bargain for 25 shares, which he supposed he was having
subject to this regulation. This was some time in• April ; he
should not be able to show them what passed on the evening of
the bargain, but he could show them that the next morning the
sharebrokers clerk 'called to tender the shares and security for
the deposit, but without the receipt. The defendant asked,.
" Where is the'receipt for the deposit ?" To which the clerk
replied, "That he bad not got it." The defendant answered,
," When your father brings nie.the receipt,l will,pav him the
money for • the shares." He also P,erhaps he has got a.
receipt for the deposit of more shares, or for sonaewhat less; if;
he chooses, I will alter my bargain accordingly." .In a day or!'
two after the cl..rk called again, but the defendant said, " I can-
not pay for the shares without the deposit receipt, and if I can-.
not have that I consider the bargain as off.' It could not
be said that the defendant was trying to get off a bad bar-
gain for those shares, for: they were at that time actually
rising in value in the market. After that time they began
to fall,. •and sometime after tliey had begun to fall the
plaintiff called on the defendant again about taking the