The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-22 00:00:00

sent to a prospectus of some kind, and, if so, of the kind
produced. Whether the prospectus was, in fact, Meucci be-
fore or after the letter of the 4th of September, did not
distinctly appear. The deputy chairman of the pro-
posed company was called, and said that he had seen
the defendant at a meeting of the managing committee,
when he expressed his approval of the project But this
witness did not seem to have an accurate recollection either
of time or place. The secretary of the company proved that
the defendant attended a meeting of the provisional com-
mittee on the 18th of October, and signed his name in the
attendance book ; but how long he stayed, what he said, or
what acts were done in his presence, except that he did not
complain of the use of his name, the witness could not say.
The minutes, however, showed that no orders for advertise•
manta were given on that day, and that his name was not
Wed to a sub-committee then formed, nor his signature
the minutes. The secretary had kept the letter
:fre* 3rd Sept, but had lost that of the 4th Sept.--On
ernes-examination of Mr. Few, the solicitor of the defendant,
who was called to prove his handwriting, it was elicited that
the secretary had admitted to Mr. Few that he had received
the letter of the 4th Sept, but hod added that the authority
of the 3rd Sept. had been renewed on the 13th Oct. Mr. Few
replied that the defendant was, on that day, at Brighton, but
no evidence was given to show that the defendant had been
at Brighton on that day ; neither the prinfer of the pro-
imeetus, nor any of his men, was called to show the exact
time at which the name of the defendant was sent to the
printer for insertion in the prospectus. The orders for the
advertisements were given by the secretary, but at whose
direction was not shown. To show that the defendant was
a member of the managing committee, the attendance on the
18th of October was, in addition to the es idence of the
deputy chairman, relied on, and also the statenunt of the
secretary that he had, subsequently to the 4th of September,
told the defendant that he had been put on the managing
committee and had received the answer, " Very well."
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Montague Smith,
for the defendant, submitted that the evidence only showed
the defendant to be a previsional committeeman, and there-
fore that, on the authority of Iteynell r. Lewis, the plaintiff
ought to be nonsuited. The learned judge, however, thought
that there was acme for the jury. Mr. Crowder thenaddrtssed
the jury for the defendant, and contended that there was
no evidence at all to fix the defendant with the liability
sought to be imposed upon him ; that he had revoked the
authority which he had once given. and never renewed it;
that his attendance on the 13th of October might have been
for the purpose of protesting against the abu.c of his name,
and that the absence of his name front the minutes, though
it was to be found in the attendance book, raised the in-
ference that though he attended, it was not with the inten-
tion of taking any part in the proceedings ; that the de-
fendant could not be connected with any resoluti ins ye-
'meeting, or crdera fur advertisements, or any other sl emcee
rendered to the company ; that the secretary had no right to
give such orders ; and that the plaintiff should have given
credit only en the express personal responsibility of some
one known to him.
Lord Denman said that he bad had an opportunity of
twain looking at the cases recently decided in the Court of
Exchequer, and ho thought thst with regard to the first of
them (lteyocll v. Lewis), there was not that difference of
opinion between him and the judgrs of that court which
some persons supposed. Ile agreed that "in every case the
question is one of fact for the jury, dependent on the
evidence, the plaintiff being bound to prove that the defendant
has expressly or implietlly, personally, or by his agent duly
authorised in that behalf, pledged his credit for the perform-
ance of the contract sought to be enforced." He also should
have left it to the jury to say" whether the defendant, by
becoming &member of the provisional committee, had autho-
rised the att,rnics, who in that case had ordered the work to
be done, to hold him out to the world as a person who would
be liable for the preliminary expenses to be incurred ? and,
secondly, was his name, in fact, so held out I" So here, then,
he would ask the jury, fleet, Whether the defendant had
authorised his name to be held out to the world as that of
one of therovisional committee of this company ? and,
secondly, Whether, by so authorising his name to lie held
out, he had authorised the secretary to give these orders
on his credit ? The questions, therefore, would be did he
authorise the secretary to represent him to be one of the pro-
visional committee ? If he did, what did that authorisation
import? Did it import n power to the secretary to pledge
the defendant's credit to the plaintiff for the services to be
performed by the plaintiff? In some of these cases the
tradesmen or other crediteri of the company had agreed to
look to the deposits only; if they thought that had been so
in this case, or that the plaintiff had given credit to some of
the other members of the provisional committee and not to
the defendant, then they would find a verdict for the
defendant, for the plaintiff must make out his
case. If they were of opinion that the defendant
had authorised his name to be represented as
that of one of the provisional committee, and that
such authorisation imported permission to incur
such expense* as those for which this action was brought,
the defendant must in respect of those expenses be
treated as a partner of those to whom ho gave the
permission, not that there was a partnership, or even
a quasi partnership, but still the effect of the relation
in which he hod placed himself resembled those of a partner-
ship, so far as the representations of the agent of one con-
tractor bound those who held themselves out to the world
as contractors. In considering the question whether the
defendant had given any authority, and the import of that
authority, they mug judge of what the defendant's meaning
was in the year 1313, and not ascertain it by means of the
discussion that had taken place during the present year. If I
at that time he meant to become bound, that meaning ought
to govern their decision, which ought not to be effected by
the views now entertained of the liabilities of provisional
committees. There was no need for the plaintiff to have
inquired whether the defendant had assented to the orders
for these advertisements, or whether he was in the majority
or minority of those assembled at any meeting at which these
advertisements had been ordered, if they thought that his au-
thority extended geneeally to the incurring expenseson neceunt
of advertisements. The object of Et provisional committee wee
to form the company ; and to the forming the company it
had been cont.nded that advertisements were necessary ;
did then the letter stating that he had no objection to his
name being cm the provisional committee, authorise all these
proceedings which were necessary tor forming the com-
pany ? if it did, then the defendant was liable, if the ap-
pointment of the secretary implied his authority to order
these advertisements to be inserted in the papers. They
would then say whether advertisements were necessary for
forming the company; and if so, whether the secretary was
not authorised to order their insertion in the newspapers.
The next question would be, whether the defendant had
revoke:) the authority which he had given on the 3rd of
September, 111111 if he had, whether he had not subsequently
countermanded that revocation, either expressly to the se- ,
cretary—for no evidence had been given to show that he was
at Brighton on the 13th October; or by his assent when the
secretary told him that his name attain the list of the Comm itt ec
and his subsequent presence in the committee-room on the
18th Oct., on which hest day it certainly had not been shown
that he complained of his name having been published in
the prospectus which had been advertised, and copies of
which had lain about in such a way that he must have seen
them.—The jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and
then returned into court with a verdietfor the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sun Pan•s.—ltctore Sir F. Pollock, C.IL, and a London Special Jury,
MOLTON V. CAMROVX.—INVALIDITY OF CONTI/ACTS
MADE IIT IXNATIC2,.—Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr.
Needham were counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Whately,
Q.C., and another learned gentleman r: presented the defen-
dants. This was an action by the representatives of ono
Thomas Lee, deceased, to recover from the National Loan
Fund Life Insurance Company,carrving on business in Corn-
hill, the sum of 35.31., paid as consideration for an annuity
granted by the company to one Thomas Lee, upon the 29th
of August, 1843, upon the ground that he was
of unsound mind, and incapable of making any
valid disposition of his goods at the time when the annuity
was granted. It appeared that Lee had been brought up as
a seal engraver, and had been for many years in the employ-
ment of a Mr. Tassy,who was long established in that trade,
which he carried on in Leicester-square. Early in life the
deceased was remarkable for great diligence and frugality,
and by the exercise of those qualities he realised some money.
In 1843 he took a shop in King-street, Soho, where he car-
ried on the business of stationer and news-agent. About
that period his conduct became remarkable for eccentricity.
Sontetimes he was subject to great depression, and at others
We was equally overcome by the most exhilarating spirits.
His conduct altogether was so singular and inconsisteet
with what it had formerly been, that those who bad
an opportunity of seeing 'him were of opinion that he
was of unsound mind. la September, 1543, however,
the symptoms of insanity became so very decided, that he
was placed in a lunatic asylum ; and on the 24th of that
month the attorneys employed by his representatives wrote
to the defendants stating that fact, and requiring them to
cancel the policies, and refund the sum now sought to be re-
covered. The company declined to do so, and upon the 14th
of 0ct.,1544, Lee died of paralysis of the brain, in Dr. War-
burton's lunatic asylum. The question, therefore, for the
decision of the jury was, whether the deceased was of un-
sound mind upon the 29th of August, 1843, when the policy
was execut,•d : because, if no, the contract was invalid, and
the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover. Upon this
subject several witnesses were called on behalf of the defen-
dente, to show that the beating and demeanour of the
deceased, when dealing with the company, were of such
a character as to render it impossible to imagine that he
was of unsound mind. The jury found a verdict fur
the plaintiff for the full amount claim.d, tend intimated their
opinion that the company were altogether free from blame
and every species of impropriety in the transaction.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Before Mr. Serjeant Adams.
Yesterday theDeeemlw r session for the city and liberties
of Westminster was held by adjournment at the Court,
house, Westminster; six prisoners only were entered in the
calendar. In charging the grand jury, the assistant judge
said this was the twelfth session which had been held
at Westminster, and the total number of the prisoners
tried did not amount to M. The 'number of prkoners for
trial now was 6, and it was ridiculous that 72 gentlemen
should be brought from their homes, incurring an expense
to the country of SOU a year, for the purpose of tryin.: such
an insignificant number of prisoners as the present, who
could be tried at Clerkenwell without any inconvenience.
He hoped a better system would soon be adopted.
The jury having discharged their almost nominal duties,
the court adjourned.

POLICE.—YESTERDAY.
GrlLlMALL.—Richard Keyes, a deputy messenger of
the Court of Bankruptcy, witia brought before Mr. Alderman
Johmon, on suspicion of having broken into the premiaei of
Messrs. 'Mappin, dealers in fancy goods and cutlery, in Fore-
street, Cripple:gate, and sl,den a quantity of knives in