The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

—Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr. Barstow and Mr. Hog-
gins, moved for a rule to show cause why a certiorari should
not be granted to remove into this Court a presentment of
the Commissioners of Sewers of Westminster, on the part of
the county of Middlesex, against William Kinnaird Jenkins.
On his neglect to perform what had been ordered, a jury
presented the fact, and a fine of 3,0001. was awarded against
Jenkins, which was confirmed by the Commissioners, and
which would be " entreated " unless some steps were taken.
The object of the motion was to bring the proceedings before
the Court of Queen's Bench, in order to try the right of the
commissioners to make such presentments. The case had
been before Mr. Justice Erie, who recommended an applica-
tion to the Court, and the Attorney-General, who was on
the other side, wished that the rule should be to show cause
in the first instance. The question would turn on the validity
of an order to Jenkins, allowing him to extend the sewage
through his own land to the public sewer, called " Ranelagh
Sewage," under the control of the commissioners. In con-
sequence of a bye-law, which Jenkins questioned, an order
bad been made on him directing him to extend his sewage to
the Monmouth-road, at the extremity of his own property,
so that the sewage of a neighbour of his might join it. It
would be contended that this order was out of the jurisdic-
tion of the commissioners, and that they bad no right so to
ilea with private property.—The Court granted a rule nisi.
The Court then sat at Nisi Prior.
IROMBIDE V. ELLIOTT.—BILL OF EXCHLNOE—PLEA OP
Fast:ix—Mr. Hoggins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Petersdorff for the defendant. The action was to recover
881. 12s. 6d. on a bill of exchange. Among other pleas was

one that the acceptance was obtained from the defendant by
fraud; and another, that the aooeptance was written on •
Thom stamp, for the accommodation of one Alexander
Thompson ; and that the defendant had no conaideration.—
The plaintiff was an egg-merchant in Bull-bead-court, New-
gate-street, and the defendant a cattle-dealer, at East Ham,
in Essex. The plaintiff had no personal dealings with the
defendant, but there were transactions between certain
Messrs. Thompson, wine-merchants, who were indebted
to the plaintiff; and in part settlement of their ac-
count handed the blank acceptance of the defendant
to the plaintiff*, which was filled up with the sum of
881. 12s. 6d. the sum claimed. After proof had been given of
the defendant's handwriting to the bill, it was urged on his
behalf, that when the accounts were about to be settled be-
tween the plaintiff and the Messrs. Thompson, a balance was
to be paid by a bill, but as they both banked the London
and Westminster Bank, if they drew on each other it would
have a en picious appearance to the bankers, previous billsof
Thompson'i and the plaiutiff's having been discounted there.
It was, therefore, suggested that another person's sig-
nature should be obtained, and, in addition to this,
the bankers were to be shown a letter containing
a consignment of seven quarters of wheat, the number
being previously altered to seventy. The defendant's signa-
ture was consequently obtained for the accommodation of
Thompson, and he was afterwards led to believe the bill was
destroyed. There was no consideration either as between
Elliott and Thompson, and none between Ironaide
and Thompson. Subsequently debts to the amount
of 821. Bs. 18kL had been assigned by Thompson to Ironaide,
so that all that we. now due to him was the difference be-
tween that sum and 881. 12s. 6d. To prove this case the
Messrs. Thompson were called.—Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(sinless in Timm)
BAD.ZIII e. STEAD.—LIABILITY OP rItOYISIONAL Con-
nrrreamerr.•-This case was tried before Mr. Justice Colt-
man at the last Maidstone assizes, when a verdictwas entered
for the plaintiff—damages 6001. The sum claimed was
9101, and the action was for work and labour done by the
plaintiff, in paying the expenses of advertisements of the
Eastern and Northern Counties Junction Railway. The
defendant was a member of the provisional committee, and
the jury found that he was hable to the amount of 6001., but
not for the full sum claimed. It appeared that the first
meeting of the provisional committee took place on the 27th
October, .nd that the advertisements in question were pub-
lished previous to that date. Arrangements had been come
to for the formation of a provisional committee, but it was
not established until the 27th October, and all the orders
received by the plaintiff were gives by Mr. Wright, the
secretary to the company, under the authority of Mr. Morris,
the acting promoter. The defendant had never attended
any meeting of the committee, but his liability was sought to
be proved by the production of a letter, purporting to have
been written by him, consenting to his name being entered
as a provisional committeeman. A witness was celled to
prove that this letter was in the handwriting of the defendant,
and he stated that he wasa banker, that the defendant was a
wool•stapler at Bradford, and that there was another per-
son of the same name living in the same town, and carrying
on the same kind of business. One of these men kept an
account at his bank, and he proved that the letter in ques-
tion was in the hand-writing of that person, but he could
not give any evidence to identify the defendant with the
writer of the letter. The jury having found for the plaintiff,
the learned judge reserved leave to the defendant to move
for a nonsuit if the Court should be of opinion that there
was no evidence to go to the jury ; and if they should be
of the contrary opinion, to move for a new trial on the
ground that the verdict was against evidence. Mr. Serjeant
Channell now moved pursuant to that leave, and cited the
case of " Sewell v. Evans," 4 Adolphus and Ellis, p. 626, to
prove that the letter produced was no evidence, in point of
law against the defendant ; and he contended that, sup-
posing that letter was admissible, there was no case to go
to the jury.
The Lord Chief Justice Wilde said the act attributed to
the defendant did not appear to be the act of a provisional
committeeman. Certain gentlemen had agreed to constitute
a committee, and the work for which the plaintiff claimed
was alleged to have been dune previous to the formation of
that committee.
Mr. Serjt. Channell said that was a correct interpretation
of the case.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
PABRATT V. CoasrooT AND BLOUNT. ANOTIFIER
RAILWAY CASE.—Mr. Humfrey moved far a rule to show
cause why the verdict (which passed for the plaintiff) should
not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or why there should
not be a new trial, on the round of misdirection, and also
on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.
The case was tried at Westminster, at the sittings after last
term, before Mr. Justice Erie. The plaintiff was an adver-
tising agent, and the defendants were sued as provisional
committeemen of the Northern, Eastern, and Southern
Jamaica Railway Company. The sum claimed was 6001,
for advertisements inserted by the plaintiff on behalf of the
said company, between the 9th and 25th of September, 1845.
The liability of Blount was admitted; but, on the part of
Cornfoot, a letter was produced, dated December 1, in which
, he (Cornfoot) had stated, in answer to an application for the
payment of the plaintiff's debt, that, since the first meeting
of the committee, he had withdrawn from the concern, "as
all his letters to the secretary would show." His name was
certainly in the list of the provisional committee, but he had
given no authority to have it inserted. Mr. Justice Erle, in
lns summing up, said, as there miAht be a scintilla of evi-
dence against Cornfoot, he would take the opinion of the
jury with respect to his liability. He (Mr. Humfrey) sub-
mitted that the learned judge was wrong in adopting this
course, and he urged that this was one of the numerous cases
in which it was necessary for the court to come to a final
decision, as there sa a great deal of doubt upon ques-
tions involving the liability of persons sued in the character
of provisional committeemen.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Shepherd.
IN THE TILING, READING, AND BASINOSTOKE RAILWAT.
—The hour appointed was eleven o'clock for the adjourned
choice of assignees, but no counsel was in attendance till
twelve o'clock, when Mr. James arrived. In the interim
several proofs were prepared, but not a word transpired.—
Mr. Hill, however, at the desire of the Commissioner, handed
in the subscription deed and the books of the company to
the official assignee. After some conversation between the
learned counsel and the attorneys on each side, Mr. James
said that he appeared on behalf of the directors, and since
the last meeting a conference had taken place between some
of the parties, and an arrangement was proposed to be
entered into, and he felt that it would be very disastrous
fighting, and extremely conflicting, when the interests of all
parties were identical. He considered that the argument of
Mr. Sergeant Allen, who, on the last occasion, represented
the shareholders, that they were distinct from the directors
as to their liabilitiei„ was somewhat fallacious, far it was
clear to him that the whole body were one company, and as
such made bankrupts.
His Honour said that the assets of the company were li-
able to the debts of the company, if they had all been declared
bankrupts as a company.—Mr. James suggested that Mr.
Lawrence should read the terms of the arrangement, not
with a view of making his Honour a party to its execution,
but to put him in possession of the facts.—His Honour said
he could not interfere, and, therefore, the reading of the
terms would not produce any beneficial effect.—Mr. James
expressed a hope that his Honour would permit theterras
to be read.—Mr. Lawrence said that if he was not permitted
to read it, it might appear in the newspapers that the matter
had been soddenly terminated by an arrangement which did
not transpire.
His Honour replied, they could advertise the terms; when
Mr. Lawrence said that it was to the effect that Mr. Blunt,
the engineer to the company, whose debt was disputed, had
agr
eed that his claim should be referred to a civil engineer,
to be agreed on by the respective solicitors; that the debts
of Messrs. Byles, Berbeck, and Hughes should be admitted
as against the company for 2701., 2301., and 1,2001. ; that
Messrs. Bytes, Berbeck, and Mr. Henry Clark should be
appointed assignees, and the petition presented in the Court
of Review to try the validity of the fiat should be dismissed,
and all costs to be paid out of the estate.