The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-29 00:00:00

tra
mation which, in particular circumstances, and In & relsreel
to particular purposes, the law required should bens.liicko!,
It meant the giving up of the bill of Mr. Jamesooi
which they would find Mr. Duncan had not COar:4
cated to the sureties. As he was going to depend
that point, he would previously state to the,heal
he considered to be the law of the case, an,_d wbaie
the jury address himself to the learned inage;c3s
province it would be to decide it. There t 010
position of law better established than this, to.
a party takes security for another, that is_, setae
that when, being a creditor, he requires some Pworeti
from a debtor, and the guarantee is given, thefidol;
giving that guarantee is entitled to everlaieee• ltt)or, 511'
mation which is in the knowledge of the ego 0
that, being known, might influence his deterininl4 sod
to whether he would be surety or not. Mr. 1,1,1).11,15 to
the other parties entered into the guarantee as frieo Ile'
Sir Thos. Brancker, under the impression that it.
cessary that he should give a security to the Pl3facel
They entered into this arrangement binding thea of sit
in the manner the jury had heard, as friends tsol
Thomas Brancker, but Mr. James Brancker
in the same position in relation to them as Su ad,'
did. Sir Thomas was the intimate personal friend co
of these gentlemen, but with his brother they 112,11011 P
paratively little acquaintance. Most certainly, 'Or
they were willing to give for Sir Thomas Brancker
rantee to the amount of £5OO each, believing that
doing they were assisting him, and giving Cored,if tbel
ranee Company something which they rentee
had been told that the real object of this guarall'd
the mere substitution of their security for tha,;":o3lt'
James Brancker, and that its object was to re'",oo
James Brancker, and not to satisfy the requirenlir orle
the Insurance Company, it was not likely that ,P.131t1
moment they would have given or consented to eorial
such security. Besides, they would observe, if Sir,ngf,
Brancker or the plaintiffs had told the defendant tu'orp
James Brancker was to be relieved from his ,s,,ecipall"
when they found the brother of Sir Thomas lv""Apscolr„
posed to be his surety, and that he was actually ea"-il o"
ing to get out of that position, it would have OPOI 01P
eyes of the defendant and the other three gentlemellod
more clearly as to the actual position of Sir
Brancker than they then were. Unquestiona.blY,
of law, he believed, the guarantee was void on ace: e al:
that concealment ; for it was not pretended that h
Jel
cumstances were made known to the guaranto'oo',
would call the gentlemen before them, and theysdr
each of them 'state that they entered into the g tair
under the impression that it was required by the,atilv
ranee Company, and in total ignorance of the ern th 6
stance that they were doing so merely to stand ,'"feall
place of Mr. James Brancker, to whom, as he had nioo
explained, they did not stand under the same oblPoo
of friendship, and whom they would certainly nev,,,eft
thought of obliging to the extent of £2,000. tTAresr
so, as it was, then the rest of the case would be 8"-coll'I:
to the learned judge; and perhaps it might be as 000
nient at that time if he turned round to him, and old Id,
ing, as he believed he might, that the evidence ire,fo
given, and that there would be no doubt that tiles" ,
tlemen were in ignorance of the fact. rstel'
His LORDSHIP : That is taken for granted, I Oa-
Mr. ATHERTON : Oh, certainly.
date
Mr. John Buck Lloyd, defendant, was then
.te,
stated : The late Sir Thomas Brancker was a ranc'fieor.,
sonal friend of mine, and also of the other geel
whose names appear with mine in the guarantee. ,
In
not very intimate with Mr. James Brancker : I kn..ltlit:
but had not the same acquaintance with him as
Thomas. I did not know anything whatever °loll'
Thomas's transactions until the 18th of Decembern'ef,
On that day, Sir Thomas called at my office and al'•
exceedingly distressed. He said he had had advancl
shares, and could get a little more time if he cowl
F 4
friend to become surety for him. He asked me if
App
become one for 8500, giving me to understand th,,„Ll"t9',
1848, would be the expiration of my liability. I""jere 5
whether the names of the other three gentlemen
the guarantee at the time when I signed it. fleu;,,ehi
mention the name of his brother, Mr. James Bral'l;ioe,
all, or that my guarantee was to be a substitute for „tee
bill. If he had,l should not have given the guar` stn
(Cross-examined :) I had confidence in Sir Thomas,
time to the amount of £5OO. I signed the doe
without taking particular notice of it.
Mr. ATHERTON having replied, d °to.
His LORDSHIP remarked, as to what had been --fictlf
regard to the plea of fraud, he did not entirely eu-fetef
what the Attorney-General had said : the entries
mere matter of suppression, and not fraudulent 'lir 011
way; for at that time Mr. James Brancker was a re io
solvent person. Another form might have been ealPt
tba
and he did not quite agree that a question of thi,e,ci
should be put on the plea, as in that case it had rile po
effect of bringing Mr. Duncan from Brussels for did
pose of proving that it was not a fraud. lie to
In re .‘,
think there had been a fraud at all.feren'' it'"
0
question about the concealment, he was of 01)1u1",a
•no answer in law, but would reserve it for the eeliLet L"
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiffs, Ow
reference to the court above.
BREACH OF Coxima.c.r.—Robinson v,
an action of breach of contract in the delivery out t 11;
tity of iron which the plain= an iron mere of„A
town, had purchased from the defendant, an iroa eol
turer, at Newcastle, in Staffordshire. The case
ctio„ "try
at the last assizes. The defendant had a cross (et be
after the case had been opened it was agreed to re
cases for settlement by an arbitrator. , a. elr
Act lON rPON A CHARTER-PARTY..—lllgeuv-,. lflapf
ron.—The plaintiff in this action was Mr. Sylves'oeo
den, a shipowner, at Stockton-on-Tees, and the
a ship called the British Monarch; the defendauto79
Thomas Calderon, a merchant,
action rose out of a charter-party, in which th
orot
tiff had agreed that his vessel should proceed to fi,l2 $
Wear, and at a safe spot, or loading-place, take 1-4 j
cargo of coke and coal, the defendant undertahilltai
ply the cargo in a reasonable time. The ship was (Idol el
from the 9th of January to the Bth of February, wl
tni
residing in Londo e 4,51,

plaintiff contended was an unreasonable time, 'crtP
a demurrage and damages. for the loss of a freirvi lo
he should have obtained from Carthagena to I'4
Verdict for the plaintiff; damages, £ll4.