The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

being no more than an interest in the profits of the
vessels.
Sir F. Thesiger having been beard in r'''''' y I
ere.
Lord Denman said, that as the '
- panyv erifich prosecuted
this writ was admitted to be a Bro:oh corporation, It wastu , in
the opinion of the courts o._Le sole owner of the vessel
in tendon, and a Bridf a subject within the meaning
a the act, notwithstandiag that foreigners might be mem-
bers of a. In no legal ',ease was an individual shareholder,
an owner of the yeas al, entitled to register it, for all the
members of the Coany, though each of them should be a
British subject, ".ould not be entitled to register it in their
individual nre..es as owners. With regard to what had been
said of the policy of the law, if the legislature had not con-
template a, and so had left unprovided fw, such a scheme of
facts P.! this case presented, if this was a ensue °minus,
andit was
for the legislature to interfere. If, on the other h, the
I.egislature had intended that foreigners should not be mem-
bers of a corporation having the objects of this company, on
which point the court would hot express an opinion, then
the lett-rs patent conferring the charter might be questioned.
The eourt, however, could not notice the disqualifications
which would disable an individual shareholder from register-
ing a vessel of which he might be the owner, since it could
only recognise as owner of this vessel the company itself, in
its character of corporation. A peremptory mandamus must
therefore be awarded.
Si-" pare..—Before Mr. Justice Erie. ..
BESANT v. GRAY.—TAVERN It
EsPENSES OF AILWAY
SVRVEYORB. Mr. Serjettnt Shee and Mr. Willes ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Montague Chambers and
Mr. E. James for the defendant. The plaintiff was the land-
lord of the Boor and Castle inn, Oxford-street ; and the de-
fendant was a solicitor, of the firm of Gray and Midge, in
Great Tower.street, and was solicitor to the Derby, Uttoxe-
ter, and Stafford railway company. The action was brought
to recover 1311., the amount of expenses incurred for some
days before the 30th November, 1845, by a number of sur-
veyors and clerks, who were getting ready the plans and
sections of the line preparatory to depositing them with the
Board of Trade. The defendant had paid 20
incurred by
1. into court,
which he contended covered all the expenses
himself and his clerks, and a sum of 61. which he had hew-
rowed -
from the plaintiff at the time It was urged, for th
plainatf, that Gray had acted entirely as the director of the
e
whole affair, and had ordered all the articles supplied—
one of the surveyors, and several waiters, Re., in the house,
were called to support this view of the case.— For the defence
it was urged that the persons in question were sent to this
tavern ,by Mr. Higgins, the engineer, who could not accom-
modate them in his own house, and that he was the person
liable. These persons went there on the 26th, and Gray did
not join them till late on the evening of the 29th ; and be-
sides these surveyors, some others, employed by Higgins on
the Oxford end IVestern Railway, were of the party. The
plaintiff d sent his bill in the first instance to
Biggins, who bail seat it to the directors, in order
to get some money on account, to enable him
to pay it Higgins had since become a bankrupt.
The plaintiff had also attended a meeting of Higains% credi-
tors as a claimant. These facts were proved, and the jury,
after along conrzltation, returned a verdict for the defendant.
in the course of the case a witness, named Wackerbath, was
called for the defence ; and, on the testament being offered
to him, to take his oath, he objected to swearing on it, as he
did not think it a Christian version, but a mere travesty.
His evidence was not taken, it not being of importance.
—__

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMISTER.
xtu foes—Baton air. Justice Creswell and • 'Pedal lure.
LSE c, NICHOLSON.—Mona RAILWAY LITIOATION.—MT,
Serjt. Byles and Mr, Lush for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin and
Mr. Atherton for the defendant.—This was en action b rought
by the plaintiff, an architect and surveyor, against the de-
fendant, a patent agent at Manchester, and a provisional
commitu•eman of the Southern Counties Union, and Bristol,
Bath, and Dover direct railway, to recover 8951., the balance
of an account alleged to be due to the plaintiff for expenses
incurred by him, and for his services in surveying the line
in question. The amount originally due was 3,2151., of which
the plaintiff had received 1,3501. before the commencement
of the action ; and subsequently, a further sum of 1.0001. had
been paid, leaving a balence of 8951. due to the plaintiff. Of
this amount the plaintiff would be content to take from the
defendant, as his quota, 100 guineas, and there wu no in-
tention on the part of the plaintiff to enter up judgment for
more then that sum. The object of the line was to form a
junction with the Eastern Counties Railway at Reigate, to
proceed to the West of England, in the nh
eigbourhood of
Bath and Bristol. The proposed capital was 1,500,0001., is
60,000 sham of 251. each. The office of the company was in
King William-street, where a provisional committee of
direction were in the habit of meeting from time to time. Of
this committee there were about 12 members, amongst whom
were Alderman Hughes Hughes, Dr. Alnutt, Mr. F. He
dewend-
ett,
and Mr. T. S. Richard,. It did not appear that the f
ant was ever preset': at any of these meetings, but it was
contended that be was liable, inasmuch as he had received,
at his own request, an allotment of 100 shares, and as he was
a member of the provisional committee and a promoter of
the said railway.—The case was sought to be proved by the
production of evidence to show that the idea of forming the
company originated with Mr. Gadsden, the secretary, that
a Mr. Wells was the appuintml solicitor to the company,
and that Mr. Lee, the plaintiff, was appointed surveyor,
under the authority of the committee of direction,
and that*the defendant was a member of that body. A let-
ter, dated Oct. 3d, 1845, addressed by the defendant to Mr.
Wells, was put in, and it was proved to contain these words :
" You may insert my name as a member of the provisional
committee." Other documentary evidence was given to
show that on the 11th Oct., a letter was written to the
defendant, requesting him, as a member of the provisional
committee, to send in his application for shares es speedily as
possible : that a few days afterwards the defendant wrote an
answer to this effect: " As a member of the prov
willisional com-
mittee, entitled to 100 shares, request allot me
that number, and 1 undertake to accept the same," Bre. A
document dated the bth Dec., was then produced, to show
that the 100 shares had been allotted to the defendant, agree-
able to his own request, and certain advertisements of the
company were put in, containing the name of the defendant
and that of the plaintiff.—Upon these facts, Mr. Martin,
followed by Mr. Atherton, submitted that there was no evi-
dence to go to the jury as against the defendant. He urged
that the ease, in its leading features, was identically the
same as that of " Wyld v. llopkina," which was decided a
few days ago in the Court of Exchequer. In that case it was
held that the mere fact of a party being a member
of a provisional committee did not render him Heide
for debts incurred by other members of the company
without his authority. Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Lush,
on the other hand, contended that there were circumstances
in this ewe which took it out of the general rule laid down in
Wyld v. Hopkins." The documents produced proved that
the defendant recognised the existence of a committee of
management and direction, that he was a promoter of the
railway, that by consenting to have his name entered in the
prospectus as a provisional committeeman, he had held
himself out to Vie world as one of the persons who would
bear the responsibilities of the company. and that by allow-
seg his name to be inserted in the advertisements which
eontained the plaintiff's name as survey or to the line, he had
ratified the appointment of that gentleman.
Mr. Justice Cresswell expressed his opinion that there was
no evidence to go to the jury to show the liability of the de-
fendant in this action, and therefore the verdict must be
entered for the defendant.—The jury accordingly returned
a verdict for the defendant.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
SAUNDERS O. WIOSTON.—RIOHT OP NEXT OF KIN TO OITE
ETIDENCE.—Sir H. d. Fust expressed his opini n o upon this
case,
case, the arguments upon which were heard on the last ses-
sion. The question was one of practice—whether a party in
a cause, or cited to see proceedings, was entitled to be eta-
mined as a witness in the MIRO% The learned judge, after
veferring to precedents and the practice of the courts, held
that the evidence given in the present case, and which was
objected to, could not be published. The party must be dis-
missed before the evidence could be received. Decision
accordingly.
Wagiso e. WARING.—This was a question of proving in
solemn form the last will of Mrs. Sarah Gibson, of Wey-
bridge, in Surrey, who died, aged seventy-four years, a
widaw, without children. She left personal property of the
value of 90,0001., and a freehold worth 3,2001. The papers
now propounded as her last will, are opposed on the ground
that the deceased was insane. The will and codicil were
dated March, 1834, and March, 1836, and the question
turned upon the period when the testatrix first became
insane, a commission of lunacy having decided that she was
so in the year 1838, in consequence of which she was treated
as such subsequently to that decision. The case did not
make much progress to-day.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Sitting% in k:rror.
ADDITIONAL SrrrtNo.—On the meeting of the court
Chief Justice Wilde intimated that it had been arranged to
have one additional sitting this day. Ten causes still stand
for argument on the list of errors from the Queen's Bench.
It is espected that two of these will be got through at the
extra sitting.
GRADORT v. THZ QUEEN, ON THY PROSECUTION OF
.1111 t DUKE or IlstuNEWick..—On this ease being called on
for argument, it um intimated, on behalf of the plaintiff in
error, that •the rule to amend the record, obtained in the
Quegla's Bench, would be undioposed of till nett term. The
court. then ore, ordered the case to stand over.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Neu Puce.- -Before Sir F. Polio* C. 8., sad a common jury.
CROCKPOIIIi V. LORD MAIDSTONE.—CLUBB.—CiAgario•
aousge.—Thiscase, which was part beard on Wednesday,
was reissued yegerday morning, at 10 o'clock, when the fol-
lowing witnesses were called:—
James Lawrence, cellerman and butler at Crockford's
club, proved that Lord Maidstone dined at least forty times
there during the yisse 1840, and frequently after k ceased te
be managed by the late Mr. Crockford. The bills when
were destroyed, but were kept as vouchers when not
~Laekarged. One Gubriel woo superintendent, and received
the money in the cofee.romn. No charge was made for
supper according to the club rules. There was a dilferent
cellar for the wines used at supper.
John Hunt deposed that air took dinners to No. 13,
Bolton-street, Piccadilly, when employ eil as porter at Crock,
ford's; two other porters did so likewise; they all received
one shilling each from Lord Maidstone, and whenever his
lordship did not pay them, that sum was put down in his
bill. The lady in Bolton-street to whom the dinners were
sent gave the porters are shillings each m a Christmas-
box. (Laughter.)
Wm. Lawrence (also a porter) corroborated the last wit.
mess's evidence, atd proved the defendant's handwriting,
in which several orders for wine were. The dinners sent to
Bolton-street were taken in by a female servant.
I:Osborne, cellarman, proved that he bad taken a doses
of sherry on one occasion, and sex dozen on another, from
King-street, where the late Mr. Crockford had a private
place of business, as a wine merchant, to No. 13, Bolton-
street, Piccadilly. It was deUvcred there.

i widii
value
I r now 1
that
dated
turtle
iman
so in
la au
maki
a
• 3 AI
Chie
have
for a
It is
Cite
0
TEN
for V
WITOI
. I Que
tow
t
C'
ROt
WI%
lowi
o
clot
tbm
be i
I 1 =
the
li csiz
J
I 11 1 r 80l
for 2
one
I i lorc
bill
lt 14411
box
11
nes
1 in 1
80l
:I
ofj
Kit
pla
ate