The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-10 00:00:00

Rain iintelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.-.-SATURDAY.
BITTING% AT %II Pius.—RIMONA MIL JUSTI,II COLUIDDI AND
• BrIECIAL JURY.

POTTER AND ANOTHEICr7I,II3IViII::itAII.WAT LIAM LITII:S.
This was an action to recov; r a sum of money fur money
paid and for work and labour done for the defendant ce one
of the directors of the Leicester, Melton Mowbray, and
Boston Direct Union Railway Company.
Mr. Scrjeent Shee and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the
itplaintiff ; and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Hcggins for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintiffs were Messrs. Potter and
Collingridge, solicitors in the City, and the defendant was a
gentlemen residing at Nottingham, who had been one of the
directors of the company in question. According to the
plaintiffs' case the company was projected in September,
1845, and the plaintiffs were applied to to become solicitors.
The scheme failed amongst others in the panic,and this action
was brought to meaner 7041. lee., which they bad paid to
Messrs. Dawson, the advertising agents, for advertieing,
stationery, eke , tor the use of the company ; 151. Ids., paid
for advertisements inserted in the Lontl6,, Gazette; and 111.
for their own costs.
The secretary and other witnesses were called, who
proved that the defendant had ethyl in the affairs of the
company, sod the expenditure of the money.
In their cram-exammation it appeared that Meuse. Potter
and Colliegridge were to have 800 therm and the projector,
a Mr. Heath, 1,600 ; and that Messrs. Potter and Collicg.
ridge were aho solicitors to the Calais, Duokirk, and
Bruges, the Direct London and lias'inas, the Oxford, Wer-
er, liter, end Chester, the Southern Junction, and the Graves-
end Railway Companies.
Fur the deft rice it wee urged that in the year 1815 the
plaintiff. started a number of railways, beginning at Calais,
Dunkirk, and Drupe, and ending at Gravesend, and em-
bracing Hattie" Chester, Oxford, and Worcester; and
they agreed with Mr. Dawson, the advertising agent, in
August, to put ill they could into his hands. Upon this
Dawson wrote a letter to the plaintiffs to this effect
--‘r We shell be happy to do the advertising, print-
ing, and statioaery of the Worcester and Chester Railway,
or any other company with which you are oonneeted;
and our plan will be to seed in our claims after the day for
the payment of the deposits, merely looking ultimately to
you." On ljth September a meeting was held, which was
record d in the minutes, in which it appeared that there were
present Charles Collingridge, Ent.,(one of the plaintiffs) R.
C. Carpenter, Esq , F. Dolman. Esq., 'l'. U. Ileath, Esq.,
John Williams, Esq., G. R. It. Potter, Esq. (another of the
plaintffe). At this meeting Mr. Carpenter's son was ap-
pointed enaineer by Messrs. Potter and CoUingedge, and
these latter gentlemen were appointed silicitors by Mr. Car-
penter. At this meeting it was resolved that Meters. Heath
sad Williams, the projectors, should have 1,600 shares
allotted to them, end Messrs. Potter end Collingridge 800, in
'consideration of their services up to that time—no very great
amount of labour or service. It was also resolved, ' that
all parties should have no claim on each other for time and
services, sod that each individual should bear all expenses
ineureel on account of the scheme up to that time, or that
might he incurred in the formation of the company, should
the project ultimately fail." Messrs. Potter and Culling-
ridge then set about, getting together a number of
the best names they could to put Mtn the prospectuses of
their different companies, many of which were inserted with-
out any as hority. To many of these gentlemen they had
given indemnities, among others to a Mr. Troup, rgaiost
whom an actin wet brought by Messrs Dawson for adver-
tising. The action wee tried in the Court of Exchequer
sad the fallowing letter to Mr. Troup was put in evidence
oln consideration of your appointing us solicitors to the
Direct London and Hastings Railway, wo hereby undertake
to work the same and indemnify you against all preliminary
expect., in the formation of the comp, ny." Upon this
there was a verdict for the defendant, and the Messrs. Daw-
son withdrew several actions they had brought against other
directors in MI ars. Petters' lines of railway, and came upon
him for payment of their account. In the company which
was it.vo.ved in the present action Mr. Potter had indemni-
-1(, d Mr. Pritchard, the high bailiff of Southwark,
and Messrs. Dawson had brought an action against Mr.
North, the prescnt defendant for their account, whim they
had withdrawn. The plaiotiffs had sent in a bill for 8131 es
for professional expenses, to Mr. North, which they bad rot
pressed. The plaintiffs and defendant were clearly co-con-
tractors in this scheme, one as much interested as the other,
and the defendant was clearly not liable to the present
plaintiff'.
The following witnesses were then called for the defence.
John Heath Williams, a stockbroker at Leicester, proved
being appointed to receive applications for shares ia several
of the lines projected, which had been alluded to in the
case, and attended preliminary meetings. At one of these
it was sieggested that 5001. or 2.sol4theuld be subscribed by
the projeeton towards the expenses. N. ne of them seemed
dispo.i d to accede to it, and they gragua'ly dispersed, and at
the end of it I found myself with Mr. Potter and toms
Wit rs. I remember Potter's saying it was au unfortunate
affair, as he should lose 20,00111. by his railways, and it
would be better to proceed with the /theme till scme depo-
site were obtained.
Croes-examin, d—l don't know if Mr. 111)th was there. I
knew none of the committee. I wan not a member of the
direction. I was appointed by Mr. Heath, crest at Leic seer,
to receive applies:lens for shirrs. That was the only meetir g
I attended. I have not seen Mr. Potter niece until to.d.y.
Sir James Duke,did not give r.ny authority to
put my mine es a member of the cteomilee on the
vertu' of this company, and did not know of it till my at-
tention was directed to it by the mayor of Boston. I %rote
to Mr. Potter on the subject.
Cress czamire—l received no answer. I was asked by
some one it I bad any objection to come here to-day. I s eid
I had been subs rimed. I was unfortunately a director
the Authe rg eta line. The deposits del not come e -
There were a great many liabilities, slid I had, Jl2
pay; 3004 or 4001. I was not aware that ,vo
I• • •
. -• pj
i •
• 4..
o4c,
td • 'I

Her was r Aid to be sisal gamete d with the Lelors'er, Melon, I
611-1 Batten Uhf a. 1 don't know Mr. D. linen er Mr. I
Sash. I don't know Mr. Simi a 501.e.,..r at Biwa,
vitriolic. I am perfect'', sure I did not give my consent
to be • :,trotter on this and was sever asked. I was i
osacereed in only two s. I was Levi? asked to
be er• o: • d. p Itstios of this line.
Wallis Pntehard-1 SW High Bailiff of Southwark. Sly
some was placed en the provideael committee of the line.
I knew Potter intimately ; I calk d on him in October 1845,
end hand him oesupied with several railways, and ofiered
tsCgive his assistance. He said he should b: üb:iged to me
Nadas; mote
passed then, but soon after 1 was surprised to
see my came advertised in three iines as • commit'', man
they wire the Direst London and Hann' s. the 13 nithern
Jennies, and this. I coiled on Potter, and remonstrated
with him for putting me on s• many lines. He ride be
should only want moon the Direct flutings, aid the Southrn
Junction, which was • pet Imo of his and Mr. Rydwr, the
intgineer, and which would probably stand ever for another
year, titers being a competing line to make arrangements
with : sad as Melton dog it was principally
got up by Mr. Chat.r, to psi his son ineir, end would
robehly be amalgamated with one or other of two cow.
=Liam. in me of which Mr. Hu leas was named;
there wool be no expiates Is those two lutes,
except ids own shames, and • few advertisement%
as to which be had made an arranges's%
I therefore did not insist on my nuns bang taken off those
two and agreed to act on the Hastings line. Afterwards
when the panic came, and I had taken an sc.iw pert in the
Hastings he told m- I should be safe, and that he would
indemnify me out of his profits as solicitor; Mr. Coiling-
ridge, his partner, came Into the room and he asked if he
did not think their coati would admit of their making such
an indemnity. Mr. Collineridge said yes, and acquiesced.
This was ea to those in wt ich my name was. Potter brought
an action against me as a director of the Hastings line, for
his professional 'mien' and the advertising.
Crossnexantioed—l became acquainted with the London
mad Mistime at the first meeting with Putter. Ide not
know Mr. Troup. I ems proctor and have bad extessiee busi-
ness. I was only connected with these three
Potter wee a friend and client of mine in ecclesitstical bun-
nies. I did not go to them for the purpose of getting mute
• director on railways. I went to inquire about the Oxford,
Woirces'er, and Chester, for a friend. I did not got° Mr. W.
Jamie, solicitor, that I did rot ask him to be put as di.
rector on railways to which he was solicitor. Mr. James did
not tell me bin lists wens full, and advise me is go to Mr.
Potter. I did not ask Mr. Potter to put me as a
director, but only offered to assist him—eertainly not
,with my name —as • director at my first meeting
with him. I did not look over the schemes at
the first meeting. After my name was down, and I did
mot withdraw it, I did lc" k. I first knew of it by seeing my
name in the papers. When I want to remonstrate for being
put on so many linos I said 1 would owlet on one. That
pretty the Hastings 'I attended the loadings of ch
airman
regularly, snored the shares, and acted as
ma •go d many occasions. In the Hastings an application
was made by the engineer for 3001., and I unitrtook to be
answer Jole for 1001. 1 was first sued by Dawson, and now I
am sued by Potter, and my case is fixed for Monday. Mr.
Potter defended me in one action, but afterwards declined to
do so, and when Dawson sued me I did sot go to Potter :to
defend me, rhe had eiv.n me • guarantee, and as 1 was in
the hai.ds of Mr. Ashur'', the solicitor. I was afraid to call
on him to fulfil his promise, when I found I was being
sued, when be had prowled to protect me.
Re-examised—All communicatioss with Potter then took
place 'lra ugh Mean. A•bunt. I told trim be had indemni-
fied me. Dawson's action against me has been withdrawn. I
was a witness in " Dawson v. Troup," and my case was to
come on the next day, but an the verdict is that case being
given the record in my ease was withdrawn.
The indemnity to Troup was here put is end read.
The resolution at the first meeting on 15th September was
read.
Tois was the defendant's case.
The Learned Judge, in summing up, toll the jury that
as to the 7041. 186. he did not think there was evidence to
show that it had been paid at the request of the defendant,
which arse necessity to bear out the allegations in the decla-
rations, hut be thought there was evidence of liability as to
the other sums.
The Foy retired, and on their return found • verdict for
the plain' if—Damages 2!1,15.. 3d.
The case occupied the entire day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAT.
StITIXOd AT Yin Pares AT OTIGNIALL.—BLPOILI LOW CUM? JUTTICI
WILDS APO A tumor JTAT.
Lawson O. DCMDLIA.--COLLISION AT Sea.
Mr. Serj-sat Wilkies and Mr. Untkank were counsel for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Bytes, with whom was Mr.
Pollock, conducted the case on behalf of the defendant.
This was an action brought by the owner of a colder brig
of 114 tons, called the Sarah, against a Trinit7 House pilot,
to recover compeuestion in damages for the injury sustained
by the brie Sarah in consequence of the defendant so mis-
managing a vessel of which he bad the thuge that thy vessel
had run into the Sarah. The brig Sarah belonged to the
port of Blythe, and it was alleged that the accident had oc-
curred through the carelessness of the defendant.
From the opening address of Mr. Serjeant Wilkins it ap-
peared that on the 11th of July, 1848, the brig Sarah, which
had been lying-to all night on the Ere: coast about five
miles below the Non, was heaving up her anchor for the
purpose of proceeding homewards to Blythe in ballast, when
a barque called the Poietien, which was cutward b and,
appeared in sight, being towed by a steam-tug. The master
of the Sarah, perceiving that the barque was bearing down
upon his vessel, and knowing that the Sarah was in a help-
less condition (her anchor be og just off the ground), made
signs to those on hoard the barque and the steam-tea to keep
clear of him. Until however the vessels came within a
hailing distance of each other no notice was taken of the sig-
nal made by the master of the Sarah. When the vessels came
within bailing dutarce, the helm of the steam-tug
was put hard-a-port, and she just escaped a collision with
the brig. The course of the Poictien (which was a large
emigrant ship of 1,000 tons burthen) was altered shoat two
.mints, hut that was not enough to enable her to clear the
brig. The Sarah was consequently struck by the Poictiers
on the starboard side, seven of her stanchions were can ied
away, all the rails and bulwarks before the foremast, and
also the ironwork of the tiggiog of the foremast The bark
Poictiers then continued ber course, and no stoppage was
made to ascettein the amount of damage done to the brig
which was taken home to Blythe, where she was surveyed
and repaired, the coat of which was rather above 351. The
present scion was brought against the pilot who had the
Poictien in charge, as he was responsible for any damage
which might be done by the ship whilst he was on board in
that capacity.
Witnesses wen then called for the plaintiff, who proved
the fats above narrated.
Mr. Seri. Byles croseessaiined the witnesses who were
called for the plaintiff, and amongst other questions, the
learned silkiest asked the mate of the Sarah whether, if all
her sails had been hauled aback and her anchor dropped, she
would not have avoided the barque by being prevented from
drifting to the leeward
The Lord Chief Justice said that any cross-examination
on this point was useless, as it was the general end well-
known rule that where a vessel was lying-to and another
vessel under weigh it was the duty of those on based the
latter to keep a look out, and to steer clear of the other.
Trion on board the vessel which was not in motion ought to
keep perfectly still, as anything done by them was likely
to deceive those on board the other ship, and might produce
• more serious collision than perhaps would otherwise take

plies.
Kr. Serjeent Bytes, for the defence, urged that the corn.
den was eatirily accidental so far as the Poictiers was oca-
rwreed, and
)hat all the blame (if any was attributable to
either party must be attributed to the crew of the brig
Saab.
The harmed unseat theta called the cants* and several of
the crew or the Poiotias, who swore that the pilot dirccted
the man at the helm, immediately that he mew there wee
a chance of a collision taking picot, to " port the helm,"
and then he gave order+ to put the helm ' hard-a-port."
Them orders the man at the wheel swore ha obeyed directly.
The defendant's mimeo's all agreed in stating that the
anchor of the brig was just off the ground, and that she
drift. d ILO the canna of the barque, and thus caused the
accident. The:captain of the barque summed his opinion
that if the head of the brig had been canted is the ordinary
way the collision would not have occurred. lie considered
the collision wu accidental. The muter of the steam-tug
stated that as he went by the Sarah he sew that her
crew had jut begun to buil sp. her anchor. lie called
out to them, " Avast heaving,' as he saw that her
teed would come to leeward immediately that the
anchor left the ground. The crew of the Sarah paid no
attention to this, but kept on working at the windlass until
after the staam.tug had done by and the anchor was out of
the ground, when, as witness bad foreseen. her head came up
to the leeward, and she drifted directly into the course of the
roictiers.
Mr. Serjunt Wilkias briefly replied,. and contended that
any degree of caution, however mall, on the part of the
pilot, would have prevented the coltish* taking place.
Lord Chief Justice Wilde was summing up, when he was
stopped by
The jury, who said that they were satisfied with the evi-
duos, and that they found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 361.

hi sextant, which was neva very large, the director bad
given special ins:ileum's that he should not be all4wed to do
so fa the future, sad the cheque was corsequently refused.
After some further eotrespoadenee, the &initiate declined
to give the 'equip, d apology, and the present action was
commenced. It wit, however, subrequently astound that
an Offer had been coin tatted in the ILCCOUIati. In December,
1816, it appeared, the plaintiff was debited with a cheque tor
101., which wit not hie, and on the 16th of April, Ib4B, an
n
sesseptimes of his brother's for 611 101. was paid at the ban
and charged to the plaintiff, in mistake. When
thou errors were detected, both sums were paid
into court, together with one shilling as amp's-
estion (or the injury alleged to have heen sus-
tained. The plaintiff was also offered all the costs then in-
curred on condition be should stay the further whereto of
the ratios, but he utheed. It was now submitted on behalf
of the defendant that the moment the errors were pointed
out the directors did all in their power to recrify them ; the
presage amount of the balance claimed was at ones paid into
gout, and the costs then incurred offered. The plaintiff
had the vouchers la his poss:seion, and therefore had the
mesas in hie power to correct the mistakes, which had, in
reality, arisen from the circumstance that in the index
of the accounts his initials and those of his
brother's were very. similar, The directors d always
treated the plaintiff with great liberality and courtesy. TOO
return they received was a throat of instant legal proceedings
for en error which undoubtedly had been committed, but
corrected as soon as it was discovered. The plaintiff was not
engaged in soy badness, and there was no pretence ter u -
inn had susthiaed any real or •abstantial damage by his
claue having been refused. Yet he had lastru,ted his
counsel to state that the case was one which Galled for serious

damages.
The Lord Chief Baran left it to the jury to say whether
sutler the circumstances the sum 'aid into court was
sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the damage
he had sustained. If more good temper and
forbearance had existed on both sides, the action
in all probability would never ban ken heard of. How.
*vet, an error had been committed, and the directun were
certainly, u men of businees, responsible for it. The plain-
tiff had the means of correcting it, and as he had not done
so, in some degree he was himself a participator in the
error. It was net for one moment sugg.ated that the least
fraud was intended, and it aid not appear that the plaintiff
bad boat anything whatever by his cheque having been re-
fused.
The jury at once returned a verdict for the defendant.
fix F. Pollock—Then you think the shilling paid into
wart sufficient damages ?
The Foreman—We think one farthing would be quite
enough.
DATLY O. WATSON ANDOrmass.—Tuz NNW ARMY AND

_
Harr Ctrs.
Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., Mr. Lush, and Mr. Wells, were
counsel for the plaintiff; Sir F. Tnesiger, Q C., and Mr.
Peacock, for the defenOants.
This was an action by a respectable tailor, carrying on
business in Pal:-mall, to recover compensation in damages
from Sir James Watson and two others (Messrs. Forbes and
Porter), as trudges of the Army and Navy Club, for ob-
structing the light and air of his dwelling-house, by the
erection of their aplerdid new building at St. James's.
square. The plaintiff had orcupied the hones No.
38, Pall-mall, which he sold to the Army and
Navy Club upon advantageous terms. He then purchased
the holm in question, No. d 2 in that street, which happened
to he so contiguous to the new building that the alleged injury
had arisen. Vier the examination of several witnesses, who
proved that since the erection of the club theta had been •
sensible diminution of air and light at the back of the
plaintiff's house, a long argument ensued as to the admissi-
bility of secondary evidence of the defendants being the trus-
tees of the club. It was proposed to prove the foot by the
oostract entered into with Mr. Trego, the architect. Notice to
produce that document was admitted, and that a subj.cena
dimes tecum had been 'erred on +he defendants' attorney
(Mr. Leroy), in whose hands it had been lodged by Mr.
Ten°. It was not, however, produced, and parole evi-
dence that the defendants had_, as tnisteies of the club, en-
tered into the contract to build it, was ultimately admitted.
The plaintiff's case was then closed, and the court adjourned.
The London sittings at nisi prim will commence at Guild-
hall to-morrow (Tuesday) morning at 10 o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Ben= Cointienoms PHILUPIL—Dic. 7.
TIM MATTI& 01.1011 X DAILET.-CONTRACTI2IO DIBTB

filiawsairs Eons° PAM Boone.
This insolvent, wise had been& wirier and leather seller,
in Bonnembey, wee egmeesd by Mr. Sargood, for Mr. W.
Webb wad Mr. ThomenWiteatly. He was supported by Mr.
Cooke.
This ease occupied three successive days. The complaint
was, that the insolvent had fraudulently contracted the debts
with the opposioe creditors, and bad kept false books, with
intent to sonceal the true state of his affairs. It appeared
from a great mass of evidence that the insolvent was a bank-
rupt en 1346, when his certificate was suspended for six
months. He now owed, in the aggregate, upwards of 0,0001.,
and the consideration debts were nearly 6,0001.
On the other side, the good debts were 2641.
His bad debts were somewhat considerable. Subsequently
to his b tnkruptcy. Mr. Webb, a young man, advanced
money, and gave a bill for 5001., in contemplation of &part-
nership at the end of twelve months, during which time he
was to have a salary of 31. a week. The books were pro-
duced to Mr. Webb, and it was now proved that false
entries had been made therein. The other opposing credi-
tor, Mr. Wheatley, an attorney, had misted the insolvent
with his acceptance* to some amount. One bill for 1101. the
insolvent told him that hr bad paid and destroyed ; he after-
wards got another for a similar amount to renew the other,
which he discounted, and the result was that Mr. Wheatley
had to pay the two bills of 1101. each, with Wits, and now
complained of the manner in which his debt had been
contracted.
The point respecting the books was investigated at great
length, and it appeared that two persons had been entered as
debtors, which entries were shown to be false, and bills were
omitted to be mentioned in the books with, as it was al-
leged, far the purpose of deception.
Mr. Commi,sioner Phillips, in giving judgment, took a
review of the cases urged against the insolvent and the eve-
denee given on the several points. He was of opinion that
the two debts with the opposing creditors had been fraudu-
lently contracted, and further that the insolvent had kept
false books with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs.
His Honour considered the judgment to be given, and at
five o'clock pronounced one'of twelve calendar months from
the vesting orders fur keeping false books and contracting
the debts of the opposing creditors by means of fraud.

MIDDLESEX BEESIONE.—EATURDAY.
Baas Ma. SELMA= Amuse, Assterswr
EDUCIBLE ENTRY AND EJECTMENT.
Thomas Battery, stn., a cabinet maker, Thomas Buttery,
jun„ sad Witham 11'Donsti surrendered to take their trial
upon an indictment charging them with a misdemeanor in
having unlawfully taken posseesion of and pulled down a
certain cottage in East-lane, Stepney.
Mr. Mellor appeared for the prosecution.
It appeared that foe eleven years past there bad been a
dispute between Buttery, senior, and Charles Buttery, his
youngest brother, as to who wee the rightful owner of the
cottage in question, which was in the possession of Charles
Battery, and which bad for a gnat number of years been
in the possession and was the property of their father, who
died some twelve years ago. Immediately after that event
Charles took possession of it, by consent of a Mr. Burkett,
to whom It was mortgaged for a small sum, but for eleven
years he did not pay any interest on the mortgage, and as
the father had died intestate, the elder brother claimed the
cottage as heir-at•law. He repeatedly made overtures to his
brother to sell the cottage, and (as he said himself) divide the
spoil, but the proposition was declined, not in a very re-
spectful manner, end, determined to " have his rights," he
applied to the mortgagee to allow him to have the cottage
upon the immediate payment of the principal and arrears of
the Interest of the mortgage ; but although the money was
tendered, the mortgagee declined the offer,and, in the month
of August last, foreclose.), and let the cottage to Charles
Buttery at a weekly rent. Between and seven o'clock
on the morning of the lOth of October, the three
defendants, accompanied:by several labouring men provided
with the necessary implements, went to the cottage, and
=Bto demolish it. When the attack was commenced,
utterey and his family were asleep, and so rapidly
I did the work of destruction progress that they had to escape
half &need, cud it was with some difficulty that they got
away uninjured ; and in lees than UP-an-hoar the cottage
was levelled to the ground, what little furniture it contained
being destroyed. This prosecution was instituted by the
mortgagee, and all the persons engaged in the transaction
were included in the indictment; but the labourers were not
proceeded against, sa they were employed by the elder But.
tery, and acted under the joint direction of the three defend-
ants now in court.
Buttery, sm., in his defence, said his brother had cheated
him of his cottage ever since his father's death ; and know-
ing that it belonged to him as the eldest moo, he went and
took possemion of it, and surely he could do as be liked wi h
his own. All the other parties acted under his instructions.
The learned Judge said the defendant must have known
that the cottage belonged to the mortgagee, and neither to
him nor his brother.
The jury found the defendants Guilty.
His lordship said he had seldom heard of a mare out-
rageous proceeding than this. It was conduct more suited
to savage than civilised life, and the sentence of the court
upon Danny, gen., was, that he pay a fine of 1001.; but the
court would give him permission to come to some terms with
the prosecutor. The other defendants would not be
sentenced until he ssw what three terms were, and the three
defendants would therefore be brought up at the next sitting
of the court.
James Chambers, convicted of being the proprietor of a
house carried on as a brothel for lucre and gam, in Windsor-
place, St. Luke's, was sentenced to pay a flee of 501., and to
be kept to had labour four calendar months.
The court directed the prisoner to be brought up again to
receive sentence upon another conviction, at the next sitting
of the court

L