The Sun. — 1864-08-17 (London, England)

RAE V. CUNARD AND ANOTIVR, In this case the plaintiff was Mr John Rae, and the de. fendants Mr Joseph Cunard and Mr James Archiba Id Kerr Wilson, and the action was brought to recover compe;ai ation from the auctioneers engaged in the sale by auction c f the Great Eastern for not having handed her over ro the plaintiff, who claimed to have made the highest bid, and to, have complied with all the conditions of the sale. air James, Q.C., stated the case for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that on Feb. 17 last the Great E. tstern was put up to auction by Mr Cunard, who performe 3 the office of auctioneer, Mr Wilson assisting him, and it I'Deing a sale without reserve as announced, the defendant e tated that he was ready to receive any bid that might be !Dade. He waited some time, and at last a bid was made of £20,000. A bid then came from the further end of the room of £25,030. "Name" was called out, and the gentlerean'a name was announced as Mr John Rae, who had been for upwards of 40 years a shipowner in Liverpool, and was extremely well known. There was E pause, and some conversation seemed to take place between Mr Cunard, Mr Viilson, and Mr Gill, an attorney. After another pause Mr Wilson proceeded to Mr Rae and said "Are you prepared to pay the deposit ?" Mr Rae replied "Why, one has not always money to this large extent in one's pocket. Knock the vessel down to me and I will provide the money forthwith." Mr Wilson went away, and there was some further parley between the gentlemen there, when Mr Cunard put up the vessel at the former bid of £20,000. Then there was a bid of 20,000 guineas, and at last £25,000 was bid again, and after dwelling for some time it was demanded who was the purchaser, when a Mr Yates was announced to be the bidder, and to him the vessel was knocked down on behalf of the New Great Eastern Steam Ship Company (Limited), Mr Rae thereupon stepped up and said, "I am the bidder of £25,000, and I demand to have the ship." But Mr Cunard replied, " I have knocked it down to Mr Yates, or to the new company ; it is not yours.' _ .  These were the main facts of the case for the plaintiff; and evidence having been heard in their support, Mr Brett. for the defence, denied that there was a bona fide bid for the ship by the plaintiff, and that he was in a condition to have paid either the deposit or purchase money. He Wade a bid which he knew could not be accepted, and after it was found that the vessel had gone at a low price, other people sought in his name to get possession of the ship.  His Lordship, in summing up, put the questions—Did the plaintiff bid as an intending purchaser ; did he intend to stand by his bid; did he give it in good faith; was the authority to sell revoked by Mr Gill, solicitor to the trustees, before the purchase was declared; was the plaintiff ready to pay the deposit either within the room or in a reasonable time at the Bank, supposing he had satisfied the auctioneers in the room of his intention and ability to do so. Thor. there was the question of damages, and they should reply to these questions. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after six hours' consultation returned a verdict for the plaintiff— damages 40s.  The Judge ruled that, upon the jury's reading of the conditions, the sale money should have been paid in the room. He therefore entered the verdict for the defendants, with leave to the plaintiff to move for a new trial.  The Wife Murder at Sheffield.