The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

DOD v. JONES.—The plaintiff in this action was a printer,
and he sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. George
Jones, an author, the sum of 891., the price of printing, &c.,
certain productions entitled " Tecumseh, an Israel-Indian
Tragedy," " Orations on General Harrison end Shakspeare,"
&c., &c. The defendant did not appear, and proof having
been given of the facts u stated, a verdict passed for the
amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings In Banco.
_ _

RICKETTB AND OTHERS, V. BENNM AND ANOTHER.—
LIAMLITIES OF MINING ADVIINTERERB.—This case was
tried before Mr. Baron Platt at the last assizes in Cornwall,
when a verdict was entered for the defendants. Mr. Crowder
now moved for a rule to show cause why that verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of misdi-
rection ; and also on the ground that the verdict was against
the evidence. It was an action brought by the plaintiffs,
who were bankers at Truro, to recover 3,6681., the balance
of an account, to which it was alleged the defendants were
liable, as co-adventurers in the Wheal Providence mine. It
appeared that in the latter end of the year 1844, an account
was opened with the plaintiffs, by a person named Alexander
Robinson, and his son, who were the principal shareholders
in the mine ; and that the defendants, being also share-
holders, had access to the counting-house in which the books
were kept. For the plaintiffs, It was contended that the
money claimed having been borrowed by prsons with
whom the defendants were co-adventurers m the said
mine, there was an implied authority from them (the
defendants), to those persons, and that, therefore, they
were liable to the debt* incurred under those circum-
stances. There was no evidence for the defendants,
but it was urged that the plaintiffs ought to be non-
suited, on the ground that the defendants were not liable,
inasmuch as the money had been obtained without
any authority, express or implied, from the defendants.
The learned judge refused to direct a nonsuit, but left it to
the jury to say whether the evidence was sufficient to prove
the liability of the defendants. The question was, whether
Robinson borrowed the money on the credit of the defend-
ants. In his opinion, the mere relation of co-adventurers
was not sufficient, in point of law, to bind one person under
circumstances where money had been borrowed by others.
He (Mr. Crowder) contended that the learned judge was not
correct in the opinion he had expressed, and that therefore
a rule for a new trial ought to be granted.—The court granted
a rule nisi.

_
WONTNER O. SRAIRP.—RIGHT OF SHAREHOLDERS IN
RAILWAYS TO RE-OBTAIN THEIR Deroarrs.---This case
was laid before Mr. Justice Erle, at the Middlesex sit-
tings after Trinity Term, when a verdict passed for the
plaintiff. It was an action brought by Mr. Woutner, soli.
citor, against the defendant, as one of the provisional com-
mitteemen of the Direct London and Exeter Railway, to
recover the sum of 821. 10s., money paid by the plaintiff for
sixty shares in the said railway.—Mr. Fitzherbert now
moved for a rule to show cause why a nonsuit should not be
entered, or a verdict for the defendant, pursuant to leave
reserved, or, why there should not be a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection on the part of the learned judge.
It appeared that the company was formed in the month
of Jane, 1846, and that on the 2,5 th Sept. the plaintiff ap-
plied for 30 shares. On the 10th Oct. he made an applica-
tion for a further allotment of 30 shares, and on the follow-
ing day, he received a letter stating that GO shares had been
appropriated to him. On the 17th Oct. an advertisement
appeared to the effect, that the committee had completed
the allotment of shares, and that, therefore, they called upon
all shareholders to pay the amount of their deposits. On
the 22d Oct. the plaintiff paid his deposit of 821. 10s. upon
the 60 shares he had obtained, and, on the 4th Nov. he
signed the parliamentary deed, and received the scrip. On
the 16th Dec. a public meetings of shareholders was held
at which the plaintiff was present. It was then announced
that out of the 120,000 shares which the scheme required,
only 68,000 had been allotted, and it was agreed that steps
should forthwith be taken, in order to procure a bill from
parliament. On the 31st of Dec. it was found that the com-
pany could not go to parliament during the then session, and
on the 6th of Jan. the plaintiff commenced his action to re-
cover back the money he had paid, alleging that he had
been induced to pay it by a fraudulent representation on the
part of the company. The grounds, upon which an applica-
tion was made for a nonsuit, were, that there was no
proof of money had and received, and no proof that the ad-
vertisement which contained the alleged fraudulent repre-
sentation was circulated for the purpose of inducing the
plaintiff to pay the money. The learned judge, in summing
up the vise, told the jury that if they were of opinion that
the advertisement in question contained a false statement,
and that that false statement was a material inducement to
the plaintiff to part with his money, the verdict must be for
the plaintiff on that ground. His lordship also left it to the
jury to say whether the plaintiff had signed the parliamentary
deed, under the same belief as he had paid the money. The
learned counsel submitted that upon one or allot the grounds
he had mentioned the defendant was entitled to a rule.—
Rule granted.