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

RAE V. CUNARD AND ANOTHER.  In this case the plaintiff was Mr John Rae, and the defendants Mr Joseph Cunard and Mr James Archibald Kerr Wilson, and the action was brought to recover compensation from the auctioneers engeged in the sale by suction of the Great Eastern for not having handed her over ro the plaintiff, who claimed to have wade the highest bid, and to have complied with all the conditions of the sale. Mr James, QC., stated the case for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that on Feb. 17 lest the Great Eastern was put up to auction by Mr Ctinard, who performed the office of auctioneer, Mr Wilson assisting him, and it being a sale without reserve as announced, the defendant stated that he was ready to receive any bid that might be made. He waited some time, and at last a bid was made o!•20,000. A bid then came from tlaa further end of the room of L 25 OM. "Name" was ea:led oct, and the gentleman's 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 a pause, and some conversation seemed to take piece between Mr Cunard, Mr Wilson, and Mr-Gill an attorney. After another pause Mr Wilson proceeded to 'Vt. Rae and said "Are you prepared to pay the deposit ?" Mr Rae replied "Why, one bag not always money to this large extent in one's pocket. Knock tire 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 et 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." Bat 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, deuied that there was a bona fide bid for the ship by the plaintifl, and that ha was in a condition to have paid either the deposit or purchase ir oney. Ho made a bid which he knew could not be accepted, and after it was found that the vessol 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. Thu. 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.