Court Of Queen's Bench, Westminster, June 4. gGn zianeo, eJeoi LEo,ad CaRpBELL CLERM)GZ ERME and eRn-%Tmv i' The SOLE rrOR-GEA?BAL moved for a rule, calling upon an attorney to show cause why he should not answer the imitters of the affidavits. The application was made on the part of a Major Stanley, who ha ben induced by an advertisement which he saw in The imes, to go to 2, Duke.street, in the Adelphi He there saw a person,who undertook to defend an action vhich bad been brought against Major Stanley; but ultimately he eblauged his attorney, and the attorney's bill being re- ferred to the Master, the Master made a report;, on which the present application was founded. Lord CAMPBELLn said, the learned SolicitorGeneral might tae a rule to show cause. THE QtEE V. GRUFPTs. Mr. MILWAsD moved for a rule calling upon H. AL Griffiths to show cause why an information in the nature of a quo wvarranto should not issue, to show by what authority he claimed to exercise the office of election auditor for the county of Warwick. Mr. Griflitha was appointed election auditor in the year 1854 under the 15th section of the Cor- rupt Practices at Elections Act (17th and 18th of Victoria, chap. 102), which enacted that " once in every year, in the month of August, the returning officer of every countv,- city, and borough shall appoint a fit and proper person to be an election officer, to be called ' election auditor or auditor of election expenses.' to act at any election or elections for and during the year then next ensuing, and until another appointment of election auditor shall be made." No fresh appointment having been made in the years 1855 andlS86 Mr.Griffiths continued nader this Eection to hold his office; but in the month of March in the present year the sheriff appointed a new election auditor-Mr. Edward Wright. Mr. Griffiths, however, disputed the validity of this latter appointment, upon the ground that M1r. Wright wag appomted in March, and not, as the Act required, in the month of August. Mr. Wright, in consequence, made the present application, and contended that the words of the s'atuto as to the time of making the appointment were directory merely, and that Mr Wright's appointment in March last wsrrgooaJ, and consequently, that -Mr. Griffiths Lord CAMIPnETL, observed that when the day for appoint. ting mayors of corporations had gone by this Court was in the habit of granting a mandamnus to proceed to an elec- Mr. MiLWARD referred to the 29th section, which enacted that in case-the election auditor should die, resign, or become incapable of acting, the returning officer should appoint a person to act as sub election auditor in the room of the person originally appointed for the remainder of the curient year. The words of the 43d of Elizabeth as to the aprintment of overseers had been held to be directory Lord CAMPwU said, the learned counsel might take a rule. THE QUEmN V. } 1J.NW VALE RAILWAY COMPANY. Mr. M.swmy moved forS rule, calling upon the Llynvi Vale Railway Company to show cause why a mandam2u should not isse, commanding them to put thle railway in a proper state for public -ve, It *ppeared from the learnd counsel's statement tha^le companu had obtaied an Act of Parlia2nent wrhich eoiisolidated the previous2 statue; and empowrered the oompavy6ocontinue and 2na2ntain thecidline buts at th?>m otimt4yJim powor t abenon ita and;t conDtruct a new line pllel to it. The oomrany had not constructed the new lne, nor -bd they aban oned the old one, but for several months they had gone on promaiinE to put it in repair. Notwithstanding thee promises, the line was still in such a bad state that the waggona were thrown off tho rails, and it was quite unfit for public use. Lord CAmpB said, the learned coansel might tke a rule to show cause. THE QUEEN V. TIE TIVERTON BOARD OF EMArI In this case the Cocrt had granted a m dam&ut to the -Tiverton Board of H[ealth, commanding them to put that part of the burialground provided by the board which was intended to be consecrated ina fit state to be consecrated by the bishop. The board had madea return to the writ, and, in order that the facts of the case might be put on the record, and the necessity of a trial might be avoided, the prosecutor had pleaded certain pleas in answer to the re- turn. The defendants objocted to these pleas, as not stating the facts accurately, and obtained a rule to strike out or amend the pleas. Mr. KARSLA, 'on tho part of the prosecution, now showeed cause against the rule, and suggested that he should be allowed to Plead a plea in the form which he produced and read to the Court. Mr. KINoDON, for the defendants, wsbhod to have it admitted in the plea that the two parts of the burislground were divided by a " suitable andsufficient division." Mr. K SALAIE objected to this Lord CAIUIBrsL said, he thought the plea ought to state the facts as they were-viz, that the whole cemetery was surrounded by a wall, and that the two parts of the cemetery were divided by a wall 18 inches hiEb. It was advisable to avoid going to trial, and his lordship thought it might be arraged. Mr. EAULAKsEai haA no objection to the words "csuitable division," but he objected to the word 'sufficient." The bishop required a fenoefour feet high, and he did so, upon the ground that, as he had iurisdiction only over the conse- crated portion, it was his duty to see that that portion was properlyg'1 fenced."1 Lord CA% EBELL-Just as if on the outside there wAS a field orsahighway. As the parties were unable to agree as to the pleas, Mtr. KAI1SrAXE sad, he would consent to the pleas beingstrukout andgotothejury upoxn atrayversofthe return. Rule accordingly. IIAIRTIEY V. PONSONBy. This was n action brought bys seaman, Robert Hartley againstthe defendant, RolbertP~onsonby, whowasmnaster,oi the ship Mobile, to recover the sum of 401,, due upon a pro- misEory note given by the defendant underthese circum- stances :-The plaintiff shipped at Liverpool as an able sea man,.and signed ship's articles at 31. permonth, from Liver. pool to Port Philip from there, if required, to any ports and places in the facifiOcen,jor China seas, c -and then to England. The ship sailed from England for Port Phillip with emigrants and a crew of 36 hands on board; and, on ariviDg there, a number of the crew deserted and were sent to prison. The tessel wa then required to go to Bombay, but as there were only 19 men lef, only four of whom were able seamen, an. arraugerent was made, between the master and the four able seamen, that if they would go with the ship to Bombay he would pay each of them 401. A.note in this-form was then signed by the master:- 'W*ltne.ea byT ohu DowneV" The shin accordingly sailee to Bombay, and thence to England; but as the defendant refused to py the money this action was brought. The action has been twice tried, and on both occasions the laintiff obtained a verdict On the last occasion it was 19ied before Mr. Justice Erie, at Guildha= at-the sittings after last H,arY term, wheni his Lordship left three questiona to the jary-L Whether the agreement was voluntaty or compuLsory? 2. Whether the master could, by reasonable exertions, have obtained additional hands? And, 3. Whether it was un- reaEonable and Improper. to proceed to sea with a reduced crew, explaining that it would bo unreasonable and im- proper if it would be dangerous to life, either from the perils of navigation or from the excessive laboar? The jury found, first, that the agreement was voluntary, and not by coercion, and, under the circumstances, for the best interests of the owners; secondly, that the captain could not get additional hands at any, reasonable price; and, thirdly, that they considered it unreasonable for a vessel of 1, 045 tons to proceed to sea with a csw~of only 19 hands. The plaintiff having thus obtained the verdict, the defendant subsequently obtained a rule to enter the verdict in his favour, and also for a new trial upon the ground that the verdictwas og4idnt the evidence,. Mr. H1. Brn, Q.C.1 and Mr. XMmWAn, now s'howed cause agains the rule, which was supported by mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Aspland. Ird CAIPBELL said, he was of opinion that the verdict found for the plaintiff ought to stand, and he founded that 9pinion on the answer given by the jury to the third ues- tion, as, hut for that answer, the undertaking would not bave been binding. The substance of that finading was, that tbe ship was so short-handed at Port Philip that it would havebeendangeroustolifetogoto Bombay, andthatthe plain. tiff was not bound under the&rticlestogotoBombay. If there had merelybeen an addition of labour, without endangering life, he(IordCampbell)shonldhavethought the new contract between the men and the master was not binding on the rmaster any more than on the owner. But the jury had found that the men were not bound on the articles to go to Bombay. They were free men, and at liberty to enter into a new contract with the master of the ship. If that was so the action was cel lymaintainable. There was no coercion, as was foundab% the Jury, and there was a consideration, for r hypothesi, t ey were notbound to go n thebship to Bom. bay. There was a voluntary underaking to do that, and the master voluntarily undertook to Ma the men the sum of 401. This decison did not conflict with any dictum or decisiox brought before the Court, and there wa the autho- nty of that able judge. Dr. Lushington, that danger to life rzleased a seaman from the obligation to continue the voyage. As, therefore, there was a voluntary agreement and a good consideration, the action was maintainable, It oould not be said the verdict was aainst the evidence. It was true there was coiflictina evidence, but he (Lord Campbell) could not say the verdict ouoht to be disturbed. The other judges were of the same opinion. Mr. Justice Esrz addled, that he was strongly im- pre,sed with the conviction that sailors ought not to he encouraged, in a moment of difficulty, to insist on higher wages; but, on the other hand. he also thought that there was a point where it was un- reasonable for the master to require the crew to go on, He (Mr. Justice E:rIe) had therefore talen care to explain these matters to the jury, who had found that it would .have been unreasonable in the master to require the crew rto go to sea. The men were therefore free sailor, and in .tbe samne position as other sailors at Post Phillip. Rule discharged. S rNS V. SOLOMMON. This was an action brought by a jeweller in Hatton- garden to recover the price of certain jewelry sold and deli- vered to the defendant. The defendant lived at Maids-hill, bat he had a shop at Lewes, which was managed by his nephew, Abraham Solomon, who had authority to manage the business and to make purchases necessary for carrying it on. Goods were supplied to the shop at Lewes from time to time, but ultimately the nephew left Lowes and came to London. He then went to the plaintiff s shop in Hatton. garden, and got nearly 201. worth of jewelry, which he ut ih his waistcoat-pocket and converted to his own use. Ee was soon after tried and convicted of the offence. On the proof of these facts before Mr. Justice Erle, at GuUilallh some time since, it was reserved for this Court to say whether there was reasonable evidence upon whichba jury might findsa verdict for the plaintifr.a Mr. hI. CnA=ims, Q.C., and Mr. MANrsTY were heard for the plaintiff; Mr. HAWKIsS and Mr. Luvwis for the defendant. Lord CiPBnE said, he thought there was reasonable evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff. There was evidence that the nephow was the general agent of the defendant in the conduct of the business; and that the defendant was hound by his acts as such general agent. The other Judges were of the same opinion. Rule accordingly. C-OURT OPF QUEENs BENCHI, WEST~USTEP T"~ 4 . RP - A ? .