Dear Cornish List, Julia reposted part one of the news for May 9, 1856. I am posting in two separate emails the 2nd and 3rd installments of that date. The formatting looks ok on the sending end, bit if there are any issues, bear with me while I get the hang of posting. For example, in Word, I've used a pound symbol which I am hoping will transfer in the mail program. Thanks for your patience, Lorena (from many Cornish lines) Legal Intelligence. STANNARIES’ COURT The quarterly sittings of the Stannaries Court for Devon and Cornwall were opened at Truro on Saturday last, before the Vice-Warden, when the following motions were made: – RICKARD and OTHERS v. HAMLEY, – Bedford Consols. – Mr. STOKES (for Mr. Chilcott) said this was a creditors’ petition for recovery of £10 5s. A decree pro confesso for payment had been granted, and a portion of the debt had been received, leaving a balance due of £7 12s. 5d. On affidavits of service of decree and non-payment, he moved for an order nísí for sale. – Rule nísí granted. GATLEY v. RICKARD. – St. Dennis Consols. – The plaintiff was Mr. John Gatley, and the defendant Mr. Martin Rickard. Mr. JOCKIN said plaintiff’s was a creditor’s petition for recovery of £122 13s. 2d., with interest from the 1st of November last. Mr. Roberts had put in an answer, but was now willing to consent to a decree for the amount, payable in a month (the decree for payment, under the new rules of court, including an order for sale). Mr. ROBERTS, for defendant, stated his consent, and the VICE-WARDEN made a decree for payment in a month. PEARSE v. BUCKINGHAM. – Tinvale Mine – Plaintiff was Mr. JOHN TUENER PEARSE; defendant, Mr. JOHN BUCKINGHAM. Mr. HOCKIN said this was a creditor’s suit for recovery of £5 10s. 2d. A decree for payment had been made under the new practice, including an order nísí for sale. He now moved, on affidavits of service and non-payment, for a rule absolute for sale. Some conversation took place between the Vice-Warden and Mr. Hockin as to whether it was not sufficient, under the new rules, to file affidavits of service and non-payment with the Registrar, and then to have an order for sale as a matter of course, without coming before the Vice-Warden. HIS HONOR said he would consider that point. NOELL v. WYNNE. – In this case, Mr. Henry Noell, of Hayle, as purser of Gwallon Mine, in St. Hilary, sued Mr. Thomas Wynne, an inspector of cole mines, in Staffordshire, for recovery of £213, 0s. 8d., costs on 22-1024th shares in that mine. The mine was started in January, 1853, when Mr. Noel sent reports and blank forms to various parties who were invited to take shares. Defendant filled up a printed form in which he applied for twenty-five. There were more shares applied for than the number into which the mine was divided; an allotment was made to each applicant rateably, and defendant was allotted twenty-two instead of the twenty-five he applied for. Notice of the allotment was sent to defendant in March, 1853, but defendant neither assented to nor dissented from the arrangement. Noticed of the mine meetings and statements of accounts were subsequently sent to defendant, who, however, took no noticed of them, or ever wrote on the subject to the purser. About t! welve months after he applied for shares, he told Mr. Charles Lear, in Staffordshire, that he would have nothing to do with the shares as he had not the number that he applied for. The case was heard at the last sittings, when the VICE-WARDEN deferred judgment. He had since given the following decision: – In this case I cannot doubt that the defendant really received all the letters and notices sent to him. Possibly he purposely abstained from making any reply, in order that he might be at liberty to accept or repudiate the shares, according as it might be found to be his interest to do one thing or the other. This would be a fraud. I am, therefore, of opinion, that he is rightly held liable as a shareholder; that his conduct on and after the receipt of the letter of March fixed him with acquiescence in the altered proposal contained in that letter; and that any other view of the case would only tend to fix him with a fraud of the company. I shall presume a contract and not! a fraud; and give judgment for plaintiff, and decree payment ! in a wee k, otherwise sale, &c. I have already said that the evidence is far from cogent. I am, therefore, willing to give defendant the benefit of an issue at law on the question whether the plaintiff consented to become a shareholder for twenty-two shares in March; on condition that the issue be tried at the next sittings, and that there be an order for sale absolute forthwith if the verdict be against defendant. If not issue be put down for trial at next sitting, then the above decree to stand.” Mr. STOKES, for plaintiff, now said he understood his friend Mr. ROBERTS was not prepared to try his issue, though he had been in communication with the parties in Staffordshire. He (Mr. Stokes) should urge that the issue be tried, if at all, during the present sittings, because the number of shares in defendant’s name in the cost-book, 22-1024ths, kept the accounts in a state of confusion. Mr. ROBERTS, in reply, stated that he did not receive his Honor’s judgment until the 21st of April, ! when he sent a copy of it to Staffordshire; and he went on to state what had since passed between him and defendant’s solicitor in Staffordshire, who certainly had not understood his client’s position, although he (Mr. Roberts) had been as explicit as he well could be. On the ground of the importance of the suit to defendant, and because he submitted plaintiff had been guilty of laches, and to give defendant’s Staffordshire solicitor an opportunity, if he wished it, of consulting counsel in London, he asked his Honor to give further time to the defendant, even if thereby the issue was thrown over for trial to the next sittings. – The VICE WARDEN said he would consider the case, and state to what extent he would depart form the condition that the issue be entered for trail at these sittings. LANG v. ROSKILLY AND ANOTHER. – In this small debt case, the verdict for plaintiff to pay costs of the day, which when taxed amounted to £3 1s. 6d. On the motion of Mr. HOCKIN, for defendants, an order was made for payment of these costs. The court was then adjourned. STANNARIES’ COURT. (Continued from the Sixth Page.) The cause list contained the following entries: – Stannaries of Devon, motions, 10; equity side, 22. Stannaries of Cornwall, suits by plaint, 43; by writ, 1; motions, 5; equity side, 21. On Monday the Court proceeded with the hearing of small debt cases (for recovery of debts not exceeding £50), and the same class of cases occupied the whole of Tuesday. On the latter day the following were amongst the actions tried: – FULFORD v. PERMEWAN. – Mr. STOKES appeared for plaintiff; the defendant conducted his own case. Plaintiff was Thomas Fulford, a miner, who sued the defendant for recovery of £5 1s. 9d., as a balance which he alleged was due to him for tutwork performed in St. Columb United Mines, in the parish of St. Columb Major, in February and March last, and for money which he said he had expended for articles used on the mine. Defendant was Mr. James Permewan, of Penzance, the purser of St. Columb United, who was sued as an adventurer in the mine. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was employed by Captain John Teague, the then managing agent of the mine, to drive south in the adit ten fathoms, at 10s. per fathom, at a place called Trebadannon, immediately adjoining the mine. He worked there from the 8th of February to the 3rd of March, when he was stopped by orders of a new agent, Captain Michell, who has been appointed in the place of Captain Teague. He had driven before he! was stopped, 9 fathoms 1 foot, which, at 10s. per fathom, would come to £4 11s 8d. He also worked two stems by direction of Captain Teague, for which he charged 2s. 6d. each day. He bought a crowbar for the use of the mine, price 4s. 2d., and Captain Teague had it; he supplied also a large candle chest for the mine, value 6s. From this he had to deduct for candles supplied to him, the greater part of which he had returned, and 1s. 6d. for “doctor and club,” after which deductions his claim was reduced to £5 1s. 9d. From this plaintiff had to make a further deduction of 6s. for the chest, because his plaint did not extend to “goods sold and delivered, “thud reducing his entire claim to £4 15s 9d. Captain Teague had measured the ground he had driven, and made it 9 fathoms 1 foot, and afterwards Captain Teague and Captain Michell had measured it together, and found it six inches more. John Rowse, whose brother had land at Trebadannon, adjoining the mine, stated that defendan! t had applied for that land to be added to the sett. It was no! t grante d him, but he obtained permission from Mr. Rowse to clear out the adit from ? mouth at Trebadannon; witness was present when Captain Teauge set the bargain to plaintiff, and he had seen plaintiff afterwards working in that adit. Captain John Teague was also called, and gave evidence that he had set the bargain to plaintiff for 10 fathoms, and that plaintiff had driven 9 fathoms 1 foot. Mr. Permewan cross-examined these witnesses at considerable length and said he had paid the plaintiff, in error, for work said to have been performed by him, but which was not, previously to the bargain which was the subject of the present suit and he wished to deduct that amount as a set-off from the plaintiff’s present claim. He was told, however, by the Vice-Warden, that he could not do so, because he had given no notice of a set-off; but he would be able to recover any amount wrongly paid, by another process. On further cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had worked in Pena! ir mine, of which Captain Teague was the agent, but he denied that he had charged for work done in both mines in the same month. These, and other questions about materials brought from Penair mine to St. Columb United, and about materials bought at a mine sale, &c., were put by defendant, with the view of showing, as he said, that Captain Teague and the plaintiff were leagued together. The plaintiff denied this imputation and on Mr. Permewan saying he wanted to show that there was no collusion between plaintiff and the agent. Captain Teague retorted – “You are an infamous man.” The Vice-Warden stopped this course of proceeding, stating that the only question was, whether the plaintiff had done certain work fro which he was entitled to be paid. Mr. Permewan, he said, had no business to make this action a vehicle for inquiring into the general management of the mine. Plaintiff admitted that after a meeting of the adventurers on the 15th of February, defendant told him he was ! to stop drivingl but, he said, defendant afterwards told him h! e was to go on under the directions of Captain Teague, who continued to act as agent till the 7th of March. This point elicited the remark from the Vice-Warden, that even if the purse ordered the work to be stopped, it having been set by the managing captain, the question was which the miner should obey. He thought the purser could not stop work ordered by the captain, unless there was a special resolution of the adventurers empowering him to do so. Eventually the VICE-WARDEN, in summing up told the jury that the greater part of the plaintiff’s claim was for work done, and there could be not doubt from the evidence, that he did that work by the direction of a person who had at the time abundant authority. – Verdict for the plaintiff for £4 15s 9d. TEAGUE v. KNIGHT. In this case Mr. William Teague, brewer, at Truro, sued Mr. John Knight, beershop keeper in that town, for recovery of £6 16s. 4d., balance alleged to be due for beer supplied to defendant between the 1st of July and the 31st of January last, Defendant had paid £3 11s. 11d. into court, which reduced plaintiff’s claim to £3 4s. 5d. Mr. STOKES appeared for the plaintiff; defendant conducted his own case. There was no dispute about the quantity of beer and porter charged for, with the exception of one kilderkin, which defendant alleged was returned, and for which he claimed a reduction of 16s. But there was a conflict of evidence about certain allowances which are frequently made by brewers to beer-sellers by retail, and on this point the court was occupied a long time. The allowances in question were 1s. per kilderkin discount to the beer-seller, and 9d. per kilderkin for grains and barm, if the latter were not supplied to the retailer. The plaint! iff, Mr. Teague, said he only allowed the 1s. discount when settlements were made on delivery of monthly or two monthly accounts; and that as to grains and barm, defendant had been supplied with even more than the usual quantity. The allowances as to grains and barm were quite gratuitous, and only made in the case of regular customers, defendant being merely an occasional customer; plaintiff did not make such allowances to parties cast of Truro. William Penno, in the employ of plaintiff, was called to corroborate his testimony. – On the part of the defendant several witnesses were called. Defendant and his son, and another witness stated that grains and barm had been had by defendant from plaintiff’s brewery only about four times; and defendant called Mr. Thomas Collins who keeps a beer-shop and eating-house in Church Lane, Truro, who stated that he had dealt with the plaintiff and his predecessor Mr. George Abraham Knight for twenty-three years, during which time he had al! ways been allowed the 1s. discount, and 9d. per kilderkin for ! barm and grains, which as he always paid for when supplied, he was allowed for when the bills were settled, and that always he had three months’ credit, and sometimes more. The same allowance for discount, grains and barm was made by the Penzance Brewery. Mr. Thomas John, who had formerly been clerk to plaintiff, said the allowances spoken of were usual; when bills had run over three, four, or more months, he had known the discounts allowed. This witness admitted that he had had differences with the plaintiff. He also said that the brewers in the west of Cornwall on one occasion met together at Hayle, and tried to abolish the allowances, but they found it would not do. The defendant himself gave evidence that plaintiff told him he would supply himo n the same terms as Mr. knight, the agent of the Penzance Brewery, which was 1s. 9d. per kilderkin for discount and barm and grains. This, however, was denied by the plaintiff, who said he never made any such agreement with defendant. Mr.! STOKES, in addressing the jury, urged that the allowances for grains and barm were only made to regular customers like Mr. Collins, and not to such as the defendant, who brewed himself. The VICE-WARDEN said, the law presumed that tradespeople were to be paid in ready money, and though a tradesman might give credit in some instances, and grant discounts, that was no proof what ought to be his dealings in all cases. The defendant, however, had said there was a specific agreement as to the terms on which he was to be supplied, and on that and other points the Vice-Warden dre attention to the credibility of the witnesses, and particularly referred to the vidence of Mr. John. Defendant claimed as a set-off, for discounts £1 9s.; for barm and grains, 18s 9d; and for kilderkin returned, 16s., which made up £3 3s. 9d. The jury retured from the court to consider the case, and on their return gave verdict for plaintiff for 18s. 9d., thus disallowing to defendant his claim for barm ! and grains, but allowing him the 1s. per kilderkin discounts, ! and the value of the returned kilderkin. WEDNESDAY, MAY 7. NOELL v. WYNNE. – The VICE-WARDEN read the order he had made in this case, to the effect that if the defendant should, within one calendar month after date of the order, elect to try an issue upon the fact whether the defendant was or was not, in April, 1853, when the first call was made, a holder of 22-1024th shares in Gwqallon mine, then such issue is to be prepared, and notice of trial to be given for the next sittings, on the common law side of the court. If the issue was not brought for trial at the next sittings, or if on trial and verdict for plaintiff, no new trial was for within three days, or if moved for was not granted, then the judgment already made in the cause to be absolute. Mr. Roberts having mentioned that defendant contemplated an appeal, the VICE WARDEN said he would give every facility for so doing, and signified his opinion that defendant might appeal either with or without trying the issue. OATES v. BARNES. – This was an action at common law, Mr. STOKES appearing for the plaintiff; and Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. R. MILLETT for the defendant. Plaintiff was Mr. Josiah Oates, of the parish of Ludgvan, and defendant was Mrs. Amelia Barnes, formerly of Regent House Academy, Penzance, and lately living at Falmouth. The action was for recover y of £66 6s. 10d., as a balance which the plaintiff claimed to be due to him from the defendant as administratrix for money payable by Richard Barnes in his lifetime to Harriet Oates, the wife of plaintiff, and for money due on an account stated. The declaration also alleged that defendant had herself promised to pay the money now claimed. In answer to this defendant had pleaded, first, that he deceased husband was never indebted; secondly, that she had never promised to pay; and thirdly she had pleaded plen administravit, or that she had fully administered all the estate and effects of her deceased husband, and had nothing le! ft to pay the plaintiff. From the statement of MR. Stokes, and the evidence of plaintiff, it appeared that Mr. Oates married Miss Harriet Boase in 1835, and that previously a marriage settlement was drawn, dated 5th September, 1835, by which £500 in New 3-1/2 per cent. Annuities, was settled upon Mrs. Oates and her children Two trustees were appointed under the marriage settlement, one being Mr. Richard Barnes, and the other a Mr. Bodilly. Mr. Barnes was the acting trustee, and it appeared that during the lifetime of Mrs. Oates (who died 10th of September last) Mr. Barnes, with the concurrence of Mr. and Mrs. Oates, sold out all the stock, and lent the sum of £336 5s. to a Mr. White, on interest, whilst the remained of the sum accruing from the stock was applied towards the purchase of land, to which the parties all agreed. The money lent to White was repaid to Barnes, and in 1847, Josiah Oates had some of the principal from Barnes. In 1848 he received from Barnes an accoun! t of the trust moneys then remaining with the trustees, as fol! lows: – 1847, Feb. 9th, by cash, £156 15s.; 1848, Feb. 5th, to case paid £25, which deducted from the previous sum left £131 15s. Mr. Barnes died in October, 1849, and his widow (the present defendant) administered to his estate and effects. Then in February, 1850 plaintiff, his wife, and the surviving trustee, Mr. Bodilly, saw Mrs . Barnes at Penzance. The account of Mr. Barnes given to plaintiff in 1848 was then talked about, and Mr. Bodilly undertook to see what the remaining balance amounted to. He then made the following additional entries with the assent of Mrs. Barnes: January 11th, 1850, interest on £131 15s. at five per cent, for three years, £19 13s., from which deduct 5s. 6d. income tax, and the sum remaining was £19 7s. 6d., which, added to the principal £131 15s., made 151 2s. 6d. Mr. Bodilly was Mrs. Barnes’s brother-in-law. Up to that time plaintiff and his wife had received the whole of the money except the sum of £151 2s. 6d., and he was then paid by Mrs. Barnes ! £51 2s. 6d., thus leaving a blance due from her as administratrix of £100. Plaintiff said Mrs. Barnes told him it was fortunate her husband’s life had been insured in £500 as it enabled her to make herself clear in the world. He received from her after that, about April, 1850, the sume of £50, which reduced the balance owing to £50, which with interest made up the sum now claimed of £66 6s. 10d. – Mr. HOCKIN cross-examined the plaintiff with the view of supporting the plea of plene administravit, to show that defendant had exhausted the estate of her deceased husband, in which case nothing more could be claimed from her. Plaintiff admitted that defendant had seven children, that she had an expensive son or two, that she had given up the school and left Penzance, and that he heard her say her debts were £800 at the death of her husband, but he believed she administered to £1,209. Mr. Hockin declined at the call of Mr. Stokes, to produce the letters of administration, and t! here then ensued a long legal argument between the advocates. ! Mr. HOCK IN submitted that the plaintiff must be non-suited, on three separate grounds: – first, that a cestui qui trust could not sue at common law to recover a balance from trustees. Secondly, that the marriage settlement deed of Harriet Boase (which had been put in as evidence) conveyed the property to her as wife and to her children and that there was no ulterior trust in favour of her husband; she had no children, and having power to dispose of the property as she pleased, but not exercising that power, Mr. Hockin contended that her husband was not her legal representative in respect of this trust money, and could not claim from the defendant. He also submitted that plaintiff could not sustain this notion without having administered to his wife’s estate. These points were argued by the advocates, and reserved by the Vice-Warden; but another point urged by Mr. Hockin, that the plaintiff had not shown assets in hand, was over-ruled by his Honor, who thought there was evidence of a! ssets to the amount of £50, and on that point the case went to the jury. Mr. HOCKIN told the jury that the representative of a deceased person was not bound, by law, to pay more that the estate produced. He then put in defendant’s letters of administration, and also the residency account, showing in the hands of the administratrix, £1,301, but that she had paid debts amounting to £903, leaving a balance of £398. The balance, however, he said was only apparent, not actual, because the house at Penzance, where the school was kept by Mr. Barnes, was valued in the account at £531 5s., but after his death Mrs. Barnes had found it was mortgaged in £400, and the mortgagee was now in possession, and the house was to be sold. Deducting therefore, the value of the house, £531 5s., from the total amount £1,301, the value of Mr. Barnes’s estate was reduced to £769 15s. 5d., and as Mrs. Barnes had paid debts amounting to £902, she had actually paid, with the assistance of friends, £1! 32 more than she had received. (Mr. STOKES here contended that! the val ue of the house could not be expunged from the assets under a plea of plene administratvit, but that the mortgage should have been specially pleaded, as in law it was considered a debt of a higher nature. His Honour made a note of the objection). Mrs. Barnes was then called, and said she had paid away more money than she had received from her husband’s estate; she did not recollect ever having told plaintiff that she had money enough to clear her in the world; she always intended to pay him if she could, but believed she never stated any time. She also gave evidence about the mortgage on the house, confirming Mr. Hockin’s statement; and Mr. R. Millett testified to the same point, stating that he had the house lately valued and the appraiser’s opinion was that it was not worth more than the £400 mortgage. After Mr. Stokes had replied, the VICE-WARDEN summed up, stating that all the property which had come to the defendant from her deceased husband had been disposed of except ! the house in question, which came into her possession at his death in 1849, and her duty, as executrix, was to dispose of it within a reasonable time, but supposing he allowed a year and a half. There was a mortgage on the house of £400, which at five per cent interest for a year and ahlf would be £430, and expenses of sale, if she had sold it, might raise the whole to £450. Now the house was valued at Mr. Barnes’s death in £531, which would be £80 more than the £450. The question was (considering Mr. Millett’s evidence as to the present value of the house, and the fact that mortgaged property sells below its value), whether they thought the house was worth more than £450 four years ago; for the point was, whether the defendant had any assets at the time of the commencement of this action, and what assets she might have had if there had been no laches in her sale of the property. – The jury retired from the court, and on returning estimated the value of the house at £53! 1, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, ! £66, 6s 10d.; defendant, however, having leave to move on the points reserved. HORSEWELL v. HAMBLY. – This was asuit in equity. Mr. STOKES and Mr. E. CHILCOTT (of Tavistock) for plaintiff; Mr. HOCKIN and MR. ROBERTS for defendant. Plaintiff claimed from defendant, as agent of Bedford Consols, the sum of £40 19s. as his salary at three guineas per month, from November 1854, to December 1855. The plaintiff claimed this money on the ground that he had been appointed, and acted as captain of Bedford Consols, though his salary had never been fixed. The plaintiff’s case was heard on Wednesday afternoon, after which the court was adjourned. THURSDAY, MAY 8. OATES v. BARNES. – MR. HOCKIN moved for a rule nisi to show cause why the plaintiff should not be nonsuited. He moved on the points reserved: – first, that it was a case of cestui qui trust, seeking to recover from his trustee, upon which an action could not be brough at common law; secondly, that the plaintiff was not in a position to sue, inasmuch as he is not thelegal representative of his late wife; and thirdly, to show cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defendant, on the ground that she had paid monies beyond the assts, and therefore was entitled to retain that amount of the debt. – The VICE WARDEN granted a rule nisi. HORSEWILL v. HAMBLY.– This case, partly heard yesterday, was now proceeded with. We shall give a report of it next week. – The Vice-Warden deferred judgment. ____________________________________________________________ 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4fea727c7db51e6bb54st01duc