West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 14th February, 1851. Part One STANNARIES' COURT - Tuesday February 11. - SHARE BARGAINS - BLAMEY v. JEWELL. Mr. STOKES for the plaintiff; Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. ROBERTS for defendant. This was an action on promises. The declaration stated that plaintiff had bargained and agreed to buy of defendant, and defendant had bargained and agreed to sell to plaintiff four 512th shares in East Wheal Leisure, for GBP50 for the whole. That plaintiff had always, from the time of making the bargain, been ready to complete the purchase, and accept the shares at the price agreed on; but although plaintiff within a reasonable time had offered to defendant to complete the purchase, and had caused to be prepared and tendered to defendant, on the 27th of November, the usual certificate or transfer of sale, addressed to the pursers of the mine, Messrs. JOHN TAYLOR and Sons, yet that defendant, not regarding his promise, did not complete the sale and sign the certificate or notice so tendered to him; nor had defendant at any time given notice to the purser of such sale, by reason of which the shares had not been transferred into plaintiff's name, and plaintiff had lost divers claims and profits, and sustained damages. Defendant in his pleadings denied these allegations. Mr. Stokes said the plaintiff was Mr. PHILIP BLAMEY, a respectable woolstapler in Gwennap, and defendant was Mr. WILLIAM JEWELL, a farmer in Perranzabuloe. He then gave a statement of the transaction between the parties which gave rise to the action. The matter occurred at Pearce's Royal Hotel, Truro, on Wednesday the 27th of last November, and the particulars are detailed in the evidence. Mr. Stokes contended that the sale was a good one; if a man in a public room, without qualification, offers shares for sale at a price, and another says he will take them, - in fairness and common sense it was but right that the man who offers the shares shall sell them. The fact that the defendant offered a sovereign to be off the bargain showed that he knew what was the ordinary mode of dealing in this county, and that he knew he had made a bargain which he was legally bound to observe, though he tried to slip from the same by pretences that he would only take a legal tender of Bank of England notes or gold, and which were in fact offered him, but he then said he would not sell the shares at all. If then the sale was good, the question arose as to the amount of damages plaintiff should have on account of defendant's breach of contract. Defendant said that night the shares were worth GBP25 each, and if so, and if Mr. Blamey had purchased the four for GBP50, and sold them that night, he would have gained GBP50; and now that appeared to be the sum that Mr. Blamey was now entitled to ask for as damages. Mr. Stokes then called Mr. STEPHEN MICHELL, of Truro, who deposed that he had been a mine share broker for about seven years, and had been concerned in mining transaction for many years before in this county. On Wednesday evening the 27th of November, he was in the coffee-room of the Royal Hotel, Truro. Plaintiff and defendant were there, and many others. A conversation took place between them respecting East Wheal Leisure mine. Defendant Jewell said he knew Mr. Blamey had shares in that mine, and asked what he would sell them for? Mr. Blamey said he was no seller. After some time defendant turned round to Mr. Blamey and said he would sell him four shares, and Mr. Blamey asked, for how much? He named GBP60. Mr. Blamey said, "I will give you GBP48." Defendant said, "I won't take it;" but he said, "you shall have them for GBP50." "I'll take them," said Mr. Blamey. Witness believed they shook hands over the bargain. Mr. Blamey said, "Mr. Stephen Michell is my broker, and there is a GBP50 cheque to pay for the shares." Witness went out and brought back a printed form of transfer (now produced it). Mr. Jewell then requested Mr. PETER MITCHELL to fill up the transfer, and he (Jewell) would sign it. Mr. Peter Mitchell filled it up, and then began the squabble about the money. Mr. Peter Mitchell presented the transfer to defendant to sign. Defendant said he would have the money first. Witness (Mr. Stephen Michell) said, "it is very unusual, and therefore I will not give you the money before you hand over your transfer." He continued in that way I should think for half an hour; he would not take the cheque, but would have the money. When he objected to the cheque, I said I will give you a lawful tender in five minutes. I was willing to give him the cheque before he executed the transfer, but not the money. This was about half-past nine or ten in the evening. I said to Jewell I would give him on my own account GBP50 as a legal tender, but he should not have it before he executed the transfer. He asked the reason. I said to him, "I will not allow Mr. Blamey to be robbed in my presence, for after you have counted the money and put it into your pocket, you may be dead before you write your signature, and then the money would be our family's." I would have given him the cheque before he signed, because payment of that might have been stopped. I had a roll of Bank of England notes in my pocket, and when I said I would pay him, I put my hand into my pocket and believe I took them out. Mr. TEDDER was sitting opposite, and said, "I will assist you with what money you want in Bank of England notes." I said I am much obliged to you, but I have sufficient with me. Mr. Jewell then offered Mr. Blamey a sovereign to be off the bargain. Mr. Blamey declined, but said he would make it up for GBP10, but he would only give him ten minutes to consider of it. The ten minutes were given; after that Mr. Blamey withdrew his offer, and said "now I will insist on having the four shares." Defendant said he would give no more than he had offered. The value of the shares that day I should think was about the price he offered to sell them for, GBP50 for the four shares. Mr. Stokes - What was the price of shares the day after? Witness - There was some discovery that night or the morning, so on the day after GBP20 per share was offered and refused, and in a few days after that I made GBP30 in this town. Some of the shares went up to GBP33 or GBP34. I sold some at GBP28 or GBP29, and since that they have been down to GBP15 or GBP16; now they have rallied again, and GBP20 have been given within these few days. Mr. Stokes - Will you explain to his Honour and the jury the usual mode of a broker in dealings of this kind? Witness - I always receive the transfer first even if it were for GBP1000. I have sold a share for GBP950, and had the transfer and carried it away, and in ten minutes or twenty when I fall in with the buyer, I have returned with the money. Cross-Examined by Mr. Hockin - There were a great number of persons in the room at the time; defendant wasted a great deal of time afterwards in "chaffing" and abuse, and then he gave Peter Michell a glass of grog for filling up the transfer. (Laughter) Mr. Hockin - And had not you been drinking liquor at all? Witness - Perhaps I had. You said you had an offer of GBP20 next day, who made you that offer? I have no right to tell, to give up my correspondents. And a few days after you make GBP30? I did, and in this town. Can you tell us to whom you sold that share? If it is any benefit to you, and the Vice-Warden approves of it. Mr. Stokes-It is not usual. The Vice-Warden-You say you made GBP30 a share as broker, and Mr. Hockin now, in order to test the truth of that, asks for the name of the party; I don't see why you should not answer. Witness- Then it was Mr. JOB, the druggist, gave me GBP30 for the share,-now are you satisfied, sir? Mr. Hockin-No, not altogether; when did you sell any more? Witness-I don't know, I don't always make memorandums. Did not defendant say, if you will put the money down on that end of the table, (pointing to the table) I will sign the transfer? I think he did, but I insisted on his signing and handing over the transfer before I paid the money. Witness further said Mr. Blamey did not tell defendant he should not have the money, but only the cheque, till the shares were registered in the cost-book. Mr. Hockin also asked witness whether he recollected coming to his office to give some account of this matter; he asked "did you say one word to me then of having the bank-notes about you, or taking them out of your pocket?" Witness-I did, and told you Mr. TEDDER, the contractor for one of the mails, offered to assist me if I had not enough; he said he had GBP40. Mr. Hockin-Are you in the habit of walking about with GBP50 or GBP60 in bank-notes in your pocket? Yes, sir, sometimes with a thousand pounds; when a man goes to market he must be prepared to buy. (Laughter). Mr. Hockin-You took out the roll of notes but would not put them down on the end of the table? Certainly not, I would not see my client robbed by him or any body The Vice-Warden - He has explained that by saying the man might die the next minutes before he had completed the transfer, and then the money would go to his executors. Witness further said he had no interest in this matter; if Mr. Blamey got damages, it would be no benefit to him; he had never sold more than two or three shares for him: he was there to state the truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Peter Mitchell, and Mr. W. SALMON, builder, were also examined as witnesses. The Vice-Warden, in summing up the case, observed that the mines of this county, when well and regularly worked, afforded wealth to the adventurers and employment to the population, as well as promoted the mercantile interest, tending greatly to the interest of this county in particular, and extending benefit to the whole country. There must be some speculation in them, or their objects would seldom be gained; but if they were made the subjects of mere broker's gambling, what was called in London stock-jobbing transactions, they would only tempt people into speculations and time bargains without the slightest reference to working the mines, which would then only have an imaginary value, like the South Sea scheme mentioned in history, or more wonderful still, the Dutch gambling some century ago, for tulip roots. This seemed like a time bargain on the Stock Exchange. You buy shares, not with the intent of working, or keeping them and paying the costs to see if they turn up good, and then selling for a reasonable or large profit; but you buy to sell again to-morrow if the cry is up and the market is free to sell. That seemed to him an unworthy usage of mining shares, but if such came into that Court they must deal with it according to law. There had been gambling in railroads even more than in mine shares; and there were several cases which laid down, that in actions for the non-delivery of shares according to contract, the measure of the damage was the difference between the price of the share as bargained for, and the price at the time when the contract was broken. With regard however to the custom amongst brokers, or between buyers and sellers of shares, no doubt many persons would trust each other's good faith; but looking at the law of the question, it was nothing more than a buying and selling, a giving and taking at the same moment. If you go to a shop and buy goods, the shopman hands the goods and you hand the money at the same time; for the shopman may say to a stranger, "if you get the goods you may bolt out, and give me trouble to obtain the money." And so in this case, defendant's business was to sign the transfer, and hold it in his hand for plaintiff to take, and to hold his other hand out for the money which plaintiff was to give. He considered however, that the evidence showed defendant refused to sign, because he believed the shares were worth GBP25 each, and that he had made a bad bargain. There was therefore a breach of contract, and that involved damages. But if they considered Mr. Stephen Michell's estimate was right, that the shares were at their real value in GBP50 that evening, nominal damages would be sufficient, because the contract was broken immediately after it was made. But they might not think Mr. Michell's estimate of the value of the shares conclusive, for the shares rose next day in consequence of a discovery, and as defendant was absent from the coffee room ten minutes, when he came in and said the shares were worth GBP25 each, he might have gained some intelligence in the town which was not then known in the room. The jury would consider the circumstances, and find damages accordingly. Verdict for plaintiff, damages GBP30. CLEMENS v. PENROSE and ANOTHER. Mr. STOKES and Mr. EDWARDS for plaintiff: Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. EDMUND CARLYON for defendants. Plaintiff is a mason of Truro, and defendants, Messrs. PENROSE AND RUNDLE, reside near St. Austell. Defendants some time since took a contract for building the district church of Treverbyn, in the parish of St. Austell, and employed plaintiff to do the stone-masons' work. He contracted to do this for GBP105, but now alleged that the work had been so altered, and the contract so entirely departed from that he must be paid by "measure and value." Mr. PEARCE, statuary, of Truro, and Mr. OPIE, of Penryn, had valued plaintiff's work at GBP198. 1s. 9d.; besides which plaintiff charged GBP28. 18s. 2 1/2 d. for day work, and another sum of 14s., making altogether GBP219. 13s. 11 1/2 d. But he had received on account GBP100. 4s. 6d., leaving a balance of GBP119. 9s. 5 1/2 d., and that was further reduced by defendants paying into court GBP36. 3s. 6 1.2 d., which they contended was all they were indebted. Plaintiff's two sons, the Rev. T. J. BENNETT, the officiating minister of the church, and Mr. Pearce and Mr. Opie were called in support of plaintiff's case. On the other hand, Mr. Hockin called for the defence, Mr. STREET, the architect of the building. The Vice-Warden decided on the evidence, that the original contract had not been so far departed from, that the value of the extra work could not be separately estimated; therefore, in law the contract price of GBP105 agreed to between plaintiffs and defendants was binding. But then arose the question as to the extra work, the charge for day labour being undisputed. Mr. Pearce and Mr. Opie estimated the extra work at about GBP66 value, whilst the other side the architect estimated it at GBP13. 8s. The jury found a verdict for GBP50, including the GBP20 for day work, but exclusive of the GBP36 paid into court by defendants. WILLIAMS and OTHERS, v. TWEEDY and OTHERS - Wheal Unity Wood West. - This was a purser's petition, defendants being assignees in bankruptcy of an adventurer holding shares in the above mine. A decree for payment had been granted, and on affidavits of service and non-payment, Mr. ROBERTS obtained an order nisi for sale of shares. In the case of the same plaintiffs and defendants, but in respect to Wheal Unity Wood East, Mr. Roberts also obtained a rule nisi for sale. JONES v. LAWTON - Rocks and Treverbyn Mine. - A purser's petition. On the motion of Mr. ROBERTS, an order nisi for sale of defendant's interest in the mine was made absolute. HENRY FRANCIS v. THOMAS SAUNDERS CAVE - Penberthy Crofts Mine - Mr. STOKES said this was a creditors' petition against the defendant, and an appearance was entered for him by the plaintiff, and proceedings went on without his appearing before the Court during any part of the progress of those proceedings. The machinery of the mine was sold, and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of the claims on the mine, after which there was a balance in the Registrar's hands of GBP32. 1s. 3d. Defendant Cave, after that balance was ascertained, instructed him (Mr. Stokes) to apply to the Registrar for the amount, but the Registrar conceived that the matter should be moved before the Court. The question now arose as to the practice in a case of this kind. After consideration, the Vice-Warden said his object was to avoid two motions, and therefore it appeared to him the form of the order must be thus:- That Mr. Stokes be allowed to appear and act for defendant as his solicitor, and to receive the money for him from the Registrar in seven days, unless cause be shown to the contrary to the Registrar. The motion must be served on plaintiff's solicitor, and there was no need of a rule nisi, for if cause were not shown, the Registrar would pay over the money in seven days. TYACK v. MANLEY - Mr. CHILCOTT, on the part of plaintiff, said this case was partly heard at the last sittings, and adjourned to the present. It was a tributer's petition against a purser; but at the close of plaintiff's case, defendant's advocate stated that he had been misled. It appeared that plaintiff had sold ore at the Bissoe-bridge smelting works, on which his claim amounted to GBP16. 16s. 1d., and that he had also sold ore at Calenick smelting-house on which his claim was a few shillings more, and by mistake he had claimed one amount in his petition instead of the other. Since that, plaintiff had received a portion of the money, and the remainder had been paid into court, so that the only question remaining was as to the costs. Mr. Hockin was about to make a statement on the part of defendant, but the Vice-Warden said he would look over his notes before he dealt further with the case. Wednesday, February 12. - IMPORTANT CASE - HARVEY and OTHERS v. HIGGINS - This was a trial in equity; Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. CHILCOTT for plaintiffs; Mr. ROBERTS and Mr. DARKE for defendants. This case was partly heard at the last sittings, and as we then gave so full a statement of the facts and arguments, a briefer report will now be sufficient. The plaintiffs were the firm of Harvey and Co., of Hayle, namely Messrs. NICHOLAS OLIVER HARVEY, JOHN HARVEY, and THOMAS WHITFORD; the defendant was Mr. JOEL HIGGINS, the purser of Wheal Reeth, and representing the adventurers. Plaintiffs had supplied goods to Wheal Reeth, and now sought to recover their value. The supplies were furnished in the first six months of 1849, when Mr. JOHN BATTEN, of Penzance, was purser of the mine. For the first three months of 1849, there was no audit of the adventurers, but at the audit on the 18th of September, 1859, there appeared a balance of GBP540. 3s. 2d. due to the purser. The plaintiffs' bill of GBP503. 13s. 9d., was charged in that account by the purser. Messrs. Batten and Son were adventurers in the mine as well as pursers. On the 27th of September, after the accounts were audited, plaintiffs went to Messrs. BATTEN, and received in payment of their account GBP3. 13s. 9d. and a two months' bill for GBP500. The bill was signed by the acceptors, "John Batten and Sons," and made payable at LUBBOCK and Co's., London. The Messrs. Batten continued pursers of the mine till the 26th of October, 1849. They made the necessary payments and received ore-bills from the 22nd of August to the 26th of October, to the amount of GBP2731, the bills being payable at thirty days after date. On the 14th of November, Messrs. Batten failed, before their acceptance given to Messrs. Harvey became due. Plaintiffs, however, had negotiated the bill, which was presented and dishonoured. The bill being for GBP500, plaintiffs, on Messrs. Batten's composition with their creditors, had received GBP300 on it, which sum had been paid "without prejudice." It had been since ascertained that on the 27th of September, Messrs. Batten were in debt to the adventurers GBP567, and on the 14th of November (the time of their failure) they were indebted GBP498, on which the adventurers had received a composition. These were briefly the facts, and defendants' advocates went on to contend that Messrs. Harvey by taking the acceptance, had discharged the mine from liability, and accepted Messrs Batten as their debtors in lieu of the adventurers. In support of this they submitted, that there were private accounts between Messrs. Batten and Messrs. Harvey; that in those accounts this bill transaction appeared; that the acceptance in question signed by Messrs. Batten, did not mention them as pursers; that it was no part of the duty of a purser to pledge the adventurers by accepting bills; that a purser could not pledge the credit of the adventurers without their sanction; that the adventurers had been prejudiced by plaintiffs' conduct; and that plaintiffs had chosen Messrs. Batten as their debtor for a sufficient consideration. Cases were cited to show that a person who takes a bill will often take it as money, and if the bill should fail, still he must be considered paid. The question also arose whether plaintiffs had not remitted their lien on the mine whilst the bill was current, and if so whether they could recover it again; and finally, it was said that as the adventurers had been prejudiced by plaintiffs' conduct in taking the acceptance, the latter were not in a position to appear in a court of equity. Since the last sittings, the accounts had been examined, and Mr. Darke, for defendant, now submitted a statement to show that at the time the acceptance was given by Messrs. Batten to plaintiffs, Messrs. Batten were then in debt to the adventurers GBP1426. 12s. In support of this he called Mr. JAMES NICHOLAS, who had been clerk to Mr. Batten, and Mr. PHILIP MARRACK, one of the partners in the Penzance Bank, of which Mr. John Batten was a partner up to the 31st of October, 1849, and where he kept a banking account. Mr. Marrack deposed to the payment of tin bills by Mr. Batten into his private banking account, and said that if on the 27th of September, (when the acceptance was given to plaintiffs,) Messrs. Batten had drawn a cheque for GBP500, it would have been honoured by the bank. Messrs. Batten kept no separate banking account for the mine, and the produce of those tin bills afterwards went in reduction of the loss of the Bank through Messrs. Batten overdrawing their account. Therefore, (Mr. Darke contended) by plaintiffs taking the bill of Messrs. Batten instead of taking measures to get a cash payment, they had caused the adventurers loss, for if they had demanded payment, the attention of the adventurers would have been directed to their purser's default at a time when he had money in his hands. Plaintiffs' conduct having therefore entailed loss on the adventurers, the latter ought not to be called on to pay the present demand. Mr. Hockin for plaintiffs, contended that at the time the acceptance was given to Messrs. Harvey, the purser had no such an amount in hand belonging to the adventurers, as had been stated. His objections applied to the including a sum of GBP453 received by Messrs. Batten for supplies to the mine, and to a tin bill of GBP723, and other particulars; besides which Messrs. Batten had to pay the labour cost of the mine. He denied that Messrs. Batten were practically in cash so as to be able to pay Messrs. Harvey's debt at the time they gave the acceptance. He then proceeded at considerable length to reply to the points urged by defendants. In conclusion he said the plaintiffs sought to enforce the usual and customary lien which a supplying merchant has against a mine, and he submitted that defendants, in a court of equity, could not get rid of an admitted debt without showing something more tangible and substantial than a mere legal argument, or a possibility of advantage on one side or injury on the other. He contended, however that nothing of the kind had been shown. But in answer to defendant's case, he should prove what would be a most material feature, namely, that the usual course of dealing in this county was that adopted in the present instance; that in all cases where a purser has not funds in hand, the system and usage of this county is to pay by bills. In fact in all cases where a purser has not funds in hand, but where a mine has tin bills coming in, the ordinary and usual practice was to give bills to the merchant; and he believed no man ever heard of that being objected to before the present case, or that it was considered the merchant, by taking those bills, abandoned any other remedy to which he was entitled. The condition of a bill would unquestionably be a contract to wait for payment a certain time, but beyond that it would not go. Plaintiffs had taken bills in this way to the amount of GBP25,000 a year; and if such a usage was so extensive in the county, it must be inferred that it was beneficial. If then it was beneficial, he trusted the Court would hesitate before, on the authority of some old law cases, it put a stop to the established usage. Mr. Hockin also replied to cases mention on the other side, and cited others in support of plaintiffs' case. Capt. WILLIAM RICHARDS, of Redruth was called and then examined by Mr. Chilcott and cross-examined by Mr. Roberts. Mr. JOHN TREDWEN, examined by Mr. Hockin - was a merchant, in business with his father at Padstow, and had been connected with that business for fifteen years. Had been in the habit of supplying goods to mines, and had generally been paid by the pursers' acceptances. In such cases, he did not look to the purser individually for payment, but to the adventurers; the bill was for supplies to the mine; it had never occurred to him that by taking the purser's acceptance, he lost any advantage as against the mine and materials on it. This practice was general in his part of the county. It being five o'clock, the remainder of the case was adjourned. WOOLCOCK v. BROWN - In this case, tried on Monday with verdict for defendant, Mr. CHILCOTT now obtained a rule nisi for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Thursday, February 13. HARVEY and OTHERS v. HIGGINS. - The examination of witnesses was continued this morning, on the custom of the county with regard to pursers giving acceptances to merchants for goods supplied. The following witnesses were examined on this point, their evidence being in effect similar to that of Captain WILLIAM RICHARDS and Mr. TREDWEN, given yesterday; Mr. WILLIAM BAYNARD, merchant, Truro; Mr. PADDON, Truro, who had been a merchant nearly forty years: Mr. RICHARD TAYLOR, purser and manager of the United Mines; Mr. G. A. KNIGHT, Truro, who had been connected with mines for many years and purser of several; Mr. JOHN TIPPET, Truro, who had been largely connected with mines for many years; Mr. G. N. SIMMONS, Truro, who had been largely concerned in mines for some years past as an adventurer and purser; and Mr. W. J. RAWLINGS, Hayle, cashier to plaintiffs. Mr. Chilcott then summed up the evidence, submitting that on the whole the custom of pursers giving acceptances to mine suppliers was most beneficial to the county, and ought to be supported. That independently of any convenience, it ought to be supported on the principle of the cases he had cited; because it was found that the plaintiffs had tried to get cash, and only took the acceptance when they could not get cash; because the taking that acceptance was the usual mode in the county; and because the taking it was no benefit to the plaintiff or detriment to the defendant. Mr. Roberts then replied on the whole case. The Vice-Warden has intimated that he shall give his judgment during the present sittings, in which case we shall report it next week. JAMES RAWLINGS and OTHERS v. FRANCIS BARRETT - Roche Rock Mine - This was a creditors' petition. Mr. STOKES said he had obtained a decree for payment by defendant of GBP63. 18s. 9d., with costs. The decree was pro confesso, payment to be made within ten days after service, and he now moved (on affidavits of service on defendant at St. Austell, by Mr. BISHOP, solicitor, and others) for a rule nisi for a decree of sale. Mr. Stokes said he had nine other creditors' petitions against the same defendant, some for considerable and others for small sums. He had obtained decrees for payment in all of those cases, and the question was, whether before he obtained a rule nisi on either of them, he ought not to consolidate the whole, and obtain a general rule nisi. The Vice-Warden, after consulting with the Registrar, said the expense would be so great of having separate rules nisi, that the cases had better be at once consolidated, and if any inconvenience arose, the courts must find a way to deal with it. He then granted Mr. Stokes's motion, first to consolidate the cases, and then for a rule nisi for sale on the affidavits produced, and in respect of the consolidated cases. Monday, February 10. (Small debt cases) - CHRISTOPHER, v. NICHOLLS - Mr. ARUNDEL ROGERS for plaintiff, and Mr. STOKES (for Mr. ROSCORLA) appeared for defendant. Plaintiff was Mr. NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER, of Zennor, and defendant, Mr. HENRY NICHOLLS, of the same parish. The plaint set out that the action was brought for recovery of GBP30 on a memorandum in writing given by defendant to plaintiff, on his advancing a certain sum of money for the use of THOMAS and JAMES OSBORNE, at the request of defendant. This memorandum or note was as follows:- "Zennor Church-town, January 20th, 1850. Dear Sir, I recommend you to let Thomas and James Osborne have the use of your cash, as they say they will restore it again to you in about two months' time, and if you are afraid of being defrauded by him of the same, I will see the same restored to you again. Yours, &c., HENRY NICHOLLS." Mr. Stokes objected that this document could not be received in evidence, because it was not stamped. On this point he cited from Roscoe's "Digest of Evidence," the 35th Geo. 3rd, or general stamp act, which was still in force, excepting as regards the reduction of the stamp duties. There were several exemptions in that statute, but neither of them were applicable to the present case. The document in question was virtually an agreement, or at all events a guarantee; and not relating to the sale of goods, but to cash, it could not be included within the fourth exemption of the statute. The Vice-Warden reserved the point, and directed the case to go to the jury. Mr. A. ROGERS then called witnesses, but there being links of evidence incomplete, to remedy which the presence of Mr. Roscorla, or Mr. PERMEWAN, of Penzance, would be necessary, the plaint was eventually withdrawn. MRS NORWAY, Wadebridge, V. WM. SANTO, St. Winnow. - Verdict for plaintiff, GBP15. 12s., rent due for use and occupation of a house and field by defendant. TICKELL and RENDELL, Surgeons, Wadebridge, v. JOHN HOSKEN, jun. - Verdict for plaintiffs, GBP2. 10s. 7d. for professional attendance. In another case, Messrs. Tickell and Rendell recovered GBP2. 19s. 6d. from WILLIAM HOSKEN, Egloshayle, also for professional attendance. WOOLCOCK v. BROWN. - Mr. CHILCOTT for plaintiff, and Mr. STOKES for defendant. Plaintiff, (a blacksmith at Lanivet), claimed GBP17. 12s. 3d. for work done and goods supplied to defendant, who is a farmer. Defendant had paid GBP3 into Court, which reduced plaintiff's claim to GBP14 odd. Witnesses were called to depose to conversations in which defendant admitted he was indebted to plaintiff. The defence was that arbitrators had been appointed by the mutual agreement of the parties, who had found that defendant was indebted to plaintiff up to Michaelmas last, only GBP3, including GBP1 due on a former account. The arbitrators, Mr. IRELAND, grocer, Bodmin, and Mr. JOHN TRELEAVEN, gave evidence, and witnesses were also called to prove the supply of wood, &c., by defendant to plaintiff. But the question was whether the payments of money by defendant to plaintiff, which the arbitrators found entered in an account book, applied to the reduction of plaintiff's demands up to Michaelmas, 1850, or to Michaelmas, 1849. The arbitrators considered that the payments applied in discharge of accounts to Michaelmas, 1850; and so thought the jury. Verdict for defendant. ELLIS v. JAMES - An undefended case, in which Mr. ROBERTS APPEARED FOR PLAINTIFF, A BREWER OF Hayle. The action was to recover a sum of GBP31. 19s. 1d., the balance of an account for beer supplied to the defendant, an innkeeper. It appeared from the evidence of plaintiff's son, that the defendant was altogether indebted to plaintiff in the amount of GBP48 including GBP16 for rent; but the plaintiff had chosen to limit his claim to GBP31. 19s., the balance of an account for beer supplied; and for this amount the jury gave a verdict for plaintiff. ELLIS v. HOSKIN - This was an undefended action by the same plaintiff against another innkeeper, for the recovery of GBP20, which it was stated was GBP8 less than was actually due. Verdict for plaintiff GBP20. These cases were proved by FRANCIS SODDY, who served the summonses, and CHRISTOPHER ELLIS, the plaintiff's son and bookkeeper. PENGELLY MINE - POPHAM v. COATES and OTHERS. - Mr. T. ROGERS stated that this petition was filed on Saturday last. Its object was to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents and workmen, from carrying on any further operations on a mine called Pengelly, in the parish of Crowan, and from further removing tin or tin ore from the mine. The circumstances of the case were as follows:- On the 26th of April last, Mr. Popham, the plaintiff, granted to two of the defendants - Mr. COATES and Mr. GUSTARD, a license to search for minerals for six months, in an old mine, on part of an estate called Pengelly. That license expired on the 26th of October last. During those six months, the plaintiff and his toller, SAMUEL ADAMS, made frequent complaints to the defendants of the unminerlike manner in which they were carrying on their operations. A few days before the 26th of October, the defendant Coates, produced to the plaintiff and his toller a list of adventurers, as had been required by the terms of the license, as preparatory to the granting a sett. By the terms of the license, the defendants agreed to pay one-eighteenth dues on all metals and minerals raised within the limits marked out, and to indemnify the plaintiff for all costs and charges which he might be called on to bear in respect of any inquiry or damage done in the course of the working; they also agreed to continue to employ nine men during the six months, it being understood that a mine sett, with the usual covenants, should be granted to them at the end of the six months, provided the terms of the license were kept, and that the list of adventurers should be approved of by the plaintiff. Mr. Rogers proceeded to state that the operations were most unsatisfactory, and as had been sworn by the plaintiff and his toller, were ineffectual and inefficient. During the whole six months, the defendants had not sunk a shaft; they had merely worked on the back of the lodes, and had done nothing at all below the adit level. On complaint being made, the defendant Coates, who resides in London, promised to send down GBP50 to secure the effectual working of the mine, and as an inducement to grant a sett. The plaintiff said if they would send that money and get a suitable list of adventurers, he would grant a sett. The money, however, never arrived, and on the 28th of October, the plaintiff sent his toller to forbid the defendants proceeding with any further operations. The toller saw the defendant Nicholas - a working miner - and forbad further operations. The defendant, however, had gone on digging out the eyes of the mine, taking away all the tin which they could raise without much difficulty, and would continue so to do, unless restrained by his Honor's injunction. They had erected no engine, and had not drawn a drop of water from the mine during the six months. Since the expiration of the license, various quantities of tin had been raised and sold by the defendants, without rendering any account to plaintiff. The present object of the plaintiff was to restrain the defendants by injunction until the case should have been heard. At the present time, as his Honor doubtless was aware, persons were looking out for mine setts. The plaintiff had been applied to by respectable parties for a sett of this mine, and he was suffering seriously in consequence of the defendants continuing in possession of the mine and working it in an unminerlike manner. His Honor took time, to read the affidavits referred to. ROCKS MINE - KENTWORTHY v. LAW - A purser's petition against defendant for unpaid calls. There had been a decree for payment of GBP100, dated the 7th of January last; and, on affidavits of service and non-payment, Mr. ROBERTS now moved for rule nisi for sale of shares. - Granted. JONES v. GYTE - This was a purser's petition in the same mine. There had been a rule nisi for sale of defendant's shares for costs amounting to GBP5. On motion by Mr. ROBERTS, and no cause shown, the rule was now made absolute. Tuesday, February 11. PENGELLY MINE - The Vice-Warden gave judgment on the application for an injunction in this case. He remarked that the defendants were trespassers removable by an action at common law, and therefore he should not issue an injunction to restrain them from working the mine. He could not see that any irremediable injury had been, or was being committed, and for that reason he should simply grant an injunction to prevent any ores being carried away until by law the rights were ascertained. He would have appointed a receiver in the case, but that plan was expensive. His Honor expressed an opinion that it was always preferable to come to terms in mining matters, rather than resort to law. He also observed that though there had been several complaints on the part of plaintiff, of the manner in which defendants did their work during the time of their experiment, yet there was no condition respecting the manner of working contained in the license; he should be of opinion that where a person takes a license to work an old mine, the very search itself must be in only an experimental way - differing from the ordinary and regular course of working. SIMMONS v. MARTIN - Carvannal Mine - This was a purser's petition, on which Mr. G. N. SIMMONS had obtained a decree for payment on or before the 6th of January. On affidavits of service and non-payment, he now obtained a rule nisi for sale of defendant's shares. In the case of WM. HENRY MARTIN, Mr. Simmons obtained a similar rule nisi for sale. NICHOLL v. CUNDY - Mr. PAULL appeared for plaintiff, Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLL, of Redruth, and Mr. BENNALLACK for defendant, Mr. WILLIAM CUNDY, of Illogan. The claim was for GBP12. 2s. 7d., a balance of account for goods supplied to defendant's wife before her marriage to him. After the examination of witnesses, an objection was taken by Mr. Bennallack, and held valid by the court, that the summons did not rightly particularize a larger amount than GBP6. 2s. 5d. out of the sum claimed. On the alternative being submitted to Mr. Paull, of withdrawing the plaint for the purpose of amendment, or accepting a verdict for GBP6. 2s. 5d. he chose to adopt the latter course, and a verdict for plaintiff was given for that amount. His Honor observed that this was one of the cases which afforded warning to men about to marry to look around them, or it might be found that besides marrying a wife, a man might also do much more - he might also marry her creditors; as long as his wife lived, he would be liable for all the debts she had contracted when single. ELLIS v. PENHALLIGON - Plaintiff was Mr. CHRISTOPHER ELLIS, of Hayle, spirit merchant; defendant, Mr. HUGH PENHALLIGON, of Helston. The action was brought for recovery of GBP50, balance of account for rent of dwelling house and premises, held from June, 1847, to November 1850. Verdict taken by consent for GBP35. Mr. Roberts for plaintiff. ELLIS of Hayle, v. MURLEY, of Gwinear. - Action brought for recovery of GBP30 for goods sold and delivered, Verdict taken by consent for GBP15. REYNOLDS v. MAY and ANOTHER - Mr. CHILCOTT and Mr. BENNALLACK for plaintiff; Mr. STOKES for defendants. Plaintiff sued defendant, and his wife (who was the administratrix of MARK PETER) for a certain sum as compensation for the maintenance of Mark Peter, who was the brother of Mrs. May. Mr. Stokes, on the part of defendants, consented to a verdict for GBP50. Verdict accordingly.