The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-21 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

litu Plum—Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and London Spre:,ll
BARNARD T. CULLS.—THE RAINBOW TAVERN.—The
Attorney-General, Mr. Maitland, and Mr. Cleaaby, were
counsel -for the plaintiff.—Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr.
Bramwell, for the defendant. It was an action for
the recovery of 457/. for wine supplied to the long es-
tablished tavern, known as the " Rainbow," in Fleet-
street. The only question at issue was whether the wine
had been supplied upon the credit of the defendant, or upon
that of one Argent, who had been a waiter in the establish-
ment. It appeared that in July, 1836, the defendant and
Argeut entered iato articles of agreement, by which
the latter was to have the house, with the excep-
tion of one bed room, and the business, in con-
sideratien, amongst other things, that he should
pay 501. a year for the use of the furniture, and 10/. a week
so tong as the business should be carried on by him. The
defendant's name was to ho retained ever the door, and in
the licenses. Argent entered into possession, and for sir
years paid the sums he had undertaken to pay to the de-
fendant. In 1541 he became bankrupt, failing for a lame
amount, in addition to his loss of 3,0001., the amount of hia

capital when he had first undertaken the business. Ile then
resumed his position of waiter, and the defendant t stained
posession of the tavern, &c., including 172 dozen of port
wine supplied to Argent by the plaintiff in the n.onth of
June' 1844, which was prior to the bankruptcy. These
were the facts upon which the present action was brought.
It was contended, for the plaintiff, that the articles t.f agree.
ment between the defendant and Argent *ere en-
tered into merely for the purpose of enaleing the
former to evade his liability for the debts of the esta-
blishment, of which he continued virtually the owner.
On the other hand, it was suggested that Argent was alone
liable for all debts contracted while the tavern was under
his management, and that the defendant bad nothing what-
ever to do with them.
The Lord Chief Baron told the jury if they be' ieved the
agreement was a sham one, they should find for the plaintiff.
It undoubteilly uppcared to be an arrangement bet oreen the
parties calculated to defraud the revenue; but "hether it
was void or not, in a mercantile point of view, was ~ question
to be determined solely by the jury.
After deliberating upon the case about twenty minutes, a
verdict was returned for the Oaintiff, with 4-171. d 'nage&
LEWIS V. AILUSTUONO.—FROVISIOISAI. COMM. FTEES OF
Raftwaye.—The Attorney-General, with Mr. H. Hill,
conducted the plaintiff's case. Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr.
Pearson, appeared for the defendant. This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, an advertising ages t, against
the defendant, who is one of the mag Armes of
Middlesex, to recover the amount of the plaintiff's
demand against the Middlesex and Surrey Junction
Railway Company for advertisements of tint project,
inserted in various newspapers. It appeared that in the
month of October, 1813, a prospectus of the uncles taking was
sont to the defendant, and certain conversations took place
between him and the Messrs. GaLaworthy and Co , solicitors,
who were the promoters of the line, the result be iag that he
consented to become a member of the provisional somraittee.
He made his appearance once or twice at the nice of the
company in Gresham-street, and complained that lie was nut
placed on the committee of management. This complaint
was remedied by his name having been place 1 upon the
managing committee, as a member of which he had attended.
However, when the panic occurred, he objected to tiske any'
further part in the proceedings, and withdrew from thous
altogether. As his reasons for adopting this course, he
alleoed that he had joined it upon the understanding that he
shoUld not be held responsible for the costs which might La
I incurred, and that he had never authorised, tw meant to
authorise, any one to contract upon his account, c r pledge his
, credit for any of the expenses of the undertakiag.
1 The Lord Cider Baron told the jury that there was no
evidence of the defendant's liability, as it did not appear he
hod expressly authorised Mr. Galaworthy, who h.tcl given the
order, to pledge his (the defendant's) credit. The question
determined by the Court of Exchequer, in the cases of
" Reynell v. Lewis," and " Wyld v. Hopkins," was that
provisional committees were not partnerships, a al that such
I bodies were not so constituted as to entitle one or more of
its members to pledge the credit of the others. In fact, that
a member of a proeisional committee could not be m ide ea-
swerable for debts contracted by the body gcneral:y,
or by its agents, except such member lad by his
own acts avowed his responsibility, or had given
special authority to pledge his credit. Ech of these
railway cases should therefore entirely dept Id upon its
own individual circumst toms, but before any member of a
pros isional committee could he held liable far the contracts
of the body, it must be proved that he had authorised his
name to be used as a person approving of such contracts, and
reely to ho responsible for any demands iu respect of them.
In the present case there was no evidence of the fact stated
by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that tl..t defendant
had consented in writing to become a member of the pre-
vi,innal committee, neither was there any proof that he had
signed the u.ual consent. On the contrary, it appeared he
had objected to do so. The order was given by the soliciter
to the company, and he had not been called, althe ugh he could
of course prove by whose authority he had given the plaintiff
the order to have the advertisementa iu question published.
Under all the circumstancea, the learned judge wax of opi-
nion that there was no evidence to show the defendant bad
ever authorised his name to be used as a person responsible
for the debts and expenses of the company, and in the ab-
sence of a specific authority to pledge his credit, there being
no evidence to show that he had sanctioned or identified
himself with the acts of the committee, the jury s'iould return
a verdict for the defendant.
The jury having found their verdict accortlin,ly,
The Attorney-General tendered a bill of exemptions upon
the ground that his lordship had misdirected the jury, as
there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's liability.
The Lord Chief Baron said he was v.: ry hopes, the ques-
tion should be raised by taking a bill of excep'ions to his
summing up. It would in all probability be tl.e most con-
venient course for the parties, and with n view to a proper
understanding as to the extent of the liability of members of
pros isionel committee.. For his (Sir F. Pollock's) own part,
he differed from some of his predecessors on the bench, and
never entertained the slightest unpleasantness that any
counsel should tender a bill of exceptions whenever he felt it
his duty to do so. The verdict was then entered for the
defendant.
- -

r. BEANSL—Sir,—The statement contained 1
in the report of this ease in your Journal of to-day (u nice in other
respects to very accurate., that Mr. Cock burn, the defendant's leading
caiumel, first applied to postpone the trial of the cause " on the
ground that a material m Mum for the defence was in n abeen',. in
net correct, ant if unexplained is calculated to do my heat (the de.
fendant "an injuatice. There was no anplicition of the land made by
Mr. Cockburn, nor was there any occasion for it. We were quite pre.
pared to go into the case, and should have called, in r.'Alition to the
witnesses whose affidavits were wed on the motion f.r a new trial,
several petsons whose testimony would have been mater al for the de-
fendant, and whose evidence the Lord Chief Baron had :lot seen, and
knew nothing whatever abort, and, had they been clll,l, a very dif-
ferent complexion would have been given to the car. Tl:e application
to postpone the trial was solely in consequence of the extra-juilicial
observations made by his lorti:hip tel Thurstity evening in the pre-
sence of the jury, that they somait to have the ease tried by another
jury. The defendant will not of course allow the ease to met in its
present position, end uill never cc:, e in his efforts to obtain that
jostler which he conee'ven h^ is entitled to.—Tuns. 1. OZ. il*FaCr,
Defendant's Attorney.—Dee. le'.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
• Before Mr. Commissioner false.
IN RE KIMPTOKE.—REFU:iAL Or CERTIFICATE.—Thia
bankrupt, who has had ne. less than seven diffe rent places
of abode, described as a mattress-maker, came up fur his cer-
tificate.
Mr. Duncan supported the bankrupt, and Mr. Lloyd, so-
licitor, opposed, on the grounds of reckless trading ; that the
expenses exceeded the profits ; that there was no cash-book ;
that he had contracted debts while in a state of i isolveney ;
and that he had improperly disposed of his pro/ erty. His
debts amount to 5791., and the assets 521. ; the expenses,
8751., and the profits 4481. The bankrupt had been in trade
20 years, and has taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act upon
two former occasions, on one of which he was remanded fur
18 months.—His Hanour refused the certificate.
IN RE W. TROWIUDGE.— Tut WOOLLEN TRADE.— I
This bankrupt was a woollen-factor in Lawrence lane, and
this day was fixed for the last examination. The 4ebts were
stated to be about 1,5001., the asset. about 1501. The trading
ran over a period of only twelve months. An adjournment
of the case was granted on account of the bankrupt's ill-
MOS.
IN RE W. 11. CON. —AN UNDER VALrATION. This
WAS a dividend meeting. The bankrupt was a bar,:e-builder.
A great number of proofs were tendered in the co tree of the
inquiry, principally on bills, nearly all of which Mr. Rixon
objected to, on the ground of want of notice of dishonour ;
abo, of notice of bills due since the fiat, having been given
to the bankrupt instead of the assignees.
A question arose in the course of the examination as to the
amount of a valuation of the bankrupt's property by a bro-
ker named Booth, which he valued at 7251., but which was
subsequently valued and sold at 1,972/. ; and the case was
adjourned for further inquiry.