To the Editor of the Nozra-Cursa Datry News.
Sm,—At a time when there is s0 severe an epidemic among the Chinese, and when so many are falling victima to it, would it Shanghai, 5th Sept., 1885. Before Sir R', Renxte, Chief Justice, and R. A. Mowat, Esq., Assistant Judye.
Lewancaanp v. THE AGRa Bank, Me. Watxctnsow appeared for thie plaintiff, and Mr, Warxewnicnt for the defondante, 'This morning their Lordships gave Judgment on the defendants' motion for a new trial, which was before the Court on the 2nd instant.
judgment of the Chief Justice.
This is an application for " new trial on the ground of misdirection of the Jury by the learned Judge who presided at the hea The action was brought for the recovery of the scrip of 86 shares of the Perak Tin Mining Ca., or their value, and jayes for their detention, or emotive for the sum of T'ls. 12,900, ther sum as with be found to be the value of the said shares when the delivery of the scrip for the shares was wrongfully refused by the defendants, with. interest thereon, The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for is. 12,000, with 8 per cent, interest yo date, Tls."13,120, ivas any amount that. may be found to be d the plaintiff to one Benjamin misdirection charyed by the d ing directed the Jury or given the jury to understand that to enable Benjamin David Benjamin, in the pleadings montia or repledge the ming and Smelling Company, in the piendings mentioned, itwas necessary that there should he an express agreement between the said B. D. Benjamin and the plaintiff that the said Benjamin ould have a right to mortyaye or replode 5 and having left it to the jury toa Benjamin should merely shares as security, or whether it was that the said B.D. Benjamin was to have the right to pledge then having also loft to the Jury another question to be answered. by them if they should find that it was agreed that Benjamin was to have the right to pledge the said shares; and not having directed the jury that, handed to the said B. D.
ity for the plaintiff's the said B. D, Benjamin had a right to repledge the said abates in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary ma' or before the time: the said shares were 80 huxnded over. No other point than that of misdirection being pressed as ground for a new trial, we have to consider First, whether there was such miadirection oF not Second, whether if there was 80, 20me substantial trong or miscarriage was thereby occasioned in the trial within the meaning of Rule 6, Order XXXIX of the Judlcature Act Third, whether or or not we should'exercise similar: discretiouary: powers
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.