The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

&Wogs is Firer.—(Bnton Lord Chief Banat Pollock,
Justices Crompton, Mellor, and Um, and Banat Bram-
well. Climatal, and Pigott.)

LIZ V. JONIB.7.IODGIII7T.

This wu an appealfromkb;(3;ort of Common Plus,
card was argued last term, when the court took time to
consider.

-Ib;Onurt to-day delivered judgment, allirmiog the de-
&mon of the court below.

ILADDICZ V. MAIMMALL.
This was a question of considerable importance to adver-
tisement agents, and the question came before the court on
an appeal front the Court of Common Pleas. It was an action
brought by the plaintiff to recover a large sum of money
for advertising the prospectus of a company of which the
defendant Marshall was one of the provisional directors.
The facts of the case are these. A person named Allen,
who was kterested in an estate in Australia, applied to a
parson named Pique to get tip •oompany, for which he was to
be paid 10,000/., he bearing the prelimiaaryexpenaes. Pique
applied to the defendant, and induced him to bovines provi-
sional director, upon the understanding that be was not to be
liable for say of the expenses. Some time after this
Pique (as alleged by the Plaintiff) showed him a resolution
directing that the company should be advertised, together
with the names of the directors. On she trial the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, but leave was given to
enter a sonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence to
go to the jury. A motion was accordingly made in the
Common Pleas for a rule to enter a noosnit, but it was re-
fused, and on that the defendant appealed to this court.
Mr. Lush, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. J. Browne), now
submitted on the part of the appellant that no authority
was Riven by the latter to enable Pique to pledge his cre-
dit. All that was authorised to be dose was to advertise
the prospectus, and that at the expense of Patine and not
of the company. A person coon:toting to become a provi•
sional director did not authorise the pledging of his credit.
The defendant did not make the sootiest here, neither had
he given Pique authority to act as his agent or pledge his
credit. Pique, when he showed the plaintiff the resolution
in the book authorising the advertising of the compasy,
ought to have informed him that it was to be done at his
rnst

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Murphy,
appeared for the plaintiff, and urged there was abundant
evidence on the trial to go to the jury. In the conversa-
tions between the plaintiff and Pepe. the latter said, in
answer to a question from the plaintiff, that the directors
would be liable for the expenses, and the minutes showed
—nay, confirmed—all that had been Mated by Paque to the
plaintiff upon the subject of advertising. Marshall was the
chairman, and he held out the secretary as his agent, and
he rendered himself liable and responsible for the work, and
labour, and business dons in COODOIIOI3 with the company.
If writing and conduct meant anything, it was clear Mar-
shall was the person trusted. The learned counsel referred
to the various documents.

The Lord Chief Justice aid that to say there was nothing
here to go to the jury was saying that which was contrary
to trial by jory at rdl.
Mr. Chambers said Mr. Marshall took a very active part
in the management of the company. He exercised a discre-
tion relative to the advertising, which was concurred in by
the other directors. He gave instructions to Pique not to
advertise aoy more, and it aria oommnsicated to the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Crompton said the minutes were evidence for
the plaintiff, and the guarantee to hold Pique harmless was
a matter for the jury.
Mr. Baron Chappell said every one of the resolutions was
signed by the defendant, and they, on the face of them, im-
posed no restrictions. It, however, was brought out on cross-
examination, and on the examination of Marshall, that •
secret agreement existed.
Mr. Baron Pigott raid it was a question for the jury, on
the whole matter, whether the defendant intended that
Pique should have made known the secret agreement that
existed between them.

Mr. Justice Shee—Could the jury have found any other
Thew!
The court stopped Mr. Chambers, sod Mr. Lush rose to
reply, but, upon the Lord Chief Baron saying the learned
judge who tried the cause could not have non•suited the
plaintiff, immediately eat down.
The Lord Chief Baron said this was an attempt to set up
a private agreement ioconsisteet with the general effect of
what had bees done for the purpose of being submitted to
the public.
The other learned judges concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiff, affirmiog the decision of the
court below.

CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL—Nun•. 30.

THZ QUITICII V. KOWTON.
The prisoner in this cam, a clergy moo, had been convicted
before Mr. Assistant Deputy Judge Payne, at the Middlesex
erosions, of az indecent assault on a lad. Objection was
taken oa the trial to the reception of evidence relative to
character, and the sentence wee taunted to enable the pri-
soner to appeal to this court. The point was argued about
a fortnight since, when the court. in courequenoe of the
great importance of the point raised with regard to criminal
cases, took time to consider its judgment.
The Lord Chief Baron Pollock to-day announced there
was a differecos of o►ivao among the five learned judges
who heard the arguments in this oase, and that therefore it
must be re-argued before the fifteen judges. Themes would
therefore have to stand over until such tine sea meeting of
the fifteen judges could be bad.

THE POLICE COURTS.