The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-03 00:00:00

sponaibility ; and finding, on account of the panic, that the '
public would not come forward and join in it, deemed it
prudent to *seam the character of en agent, and shift his
responsibility upon a "company" which never appeared to
have bad any existence. The evidence for the plaintiff
went to show that the work had been performed by the
direction of the defendant, and that be had given kis own
,cheques for the amount that was paid on account. It
likewise appeared that the only evidence of the existence
of a company was when, upon one occasion, the plaintiff
was pressing for money, the defendant referred him to the
committee who were sitting in a house in Adametreet, Adel-
phi, and be there saw several gentlemen who were entire
strangers to him, but upon his applying to them for money,
they told him they had not got any at that time, but they
would see whether he could have any in a few days, and re-
ferred him to Mr. Smith for a final emcee—Se*. Channell,
in addressing the jury for the defendant, said that the pre-
sent ease Involved a question of very great importance
to solicitors and if they were to be mad, answerable
for the liabilities of a company with which they were
only professionally connected, the consequences would
be very serious indeed to gentlemen in that position.
In the present inatance, Mr. Smith had merely acted
as the solicitor to the company, and although he had cer-
tainly paid money out of his own funds to the plaintiff.
on account, he only did so as the agent for the company, and
on their behalf, till they obtained funds by the allotment of
ehares,and upon three occasions when he ea advanced money,
he expressly told the plaintiff that he only did so out of hie
own private funds, and required him to give I. 0. U.'s for
the amount, to be paid when he received funds from the
company, and the plaintiff gave receipts acknowledging the
company as his employers. Evidence was adduced on behalf
of the defendant, to show those facts ; but it appeared that
the plaintiff was not required to sign the receipt as from the
company, until after it was pretty tolerably apparent that
the scheme would be • failure, and it became important for
the defendant to endeavour to shield himself from respon-
sibility pn account of his connexion with it. Mr. Cham-
bers, in his reply upon the defeudant's case, said,
he admitted that the point at issue involved an important
question for solicitors who were connected with railway
schemes, but he could not help thinking that the jury
would consider it was equally important that tradesmen
should not be induced to perform services, and expend their
time and property, upon bubble schemes, and when they
exploded they were to be told by the person who had em-
ployed them, when they applied to him for payment, that
he was not responsible, arid they were referred to a com-
pany and a committee, neither of which had existence.
The Lord Chief Justice in summing up, said, that • solicitor
to a railway or any other company would not be liable for
work performed for it, if he merely acted as the agent of
such company, and did not take upon himself any special
responsibility; but there ought to be evidence of the exist-
ence of a company, and of responsible persons to whom ha
acted as agent. In the absence of such evidence in this
case (with the exception of that which related to the visit to
the committee in Adam-street,Adelphl,which appeared very
slight, for none of the parties present appeared to be known),
the question for the jury was, whether the defendant was
not personally responsible to the plaintiff for the work that
had been performed by his direction. The jury, after a very
short deliberation, returned a verdict for the p!ausUff for the
amount claimed.—The Lord Chief lionize said it was unfor-
tunate for Mr. Smith, but he hoped there were some other
responsible pence's connected with the *Acme to whom he
could himself look for payment.

EIRE v. SCOVELL ♦ND OTHlms.—Hops.—This W2ll
special jury cause. The action was in trover to re-
cover possession of a large quantity of hops that were
detained by the defendants, who are extensive whar-
fingers in Tooley-atreet. The defendants pleaded, under
• guarantee from Messrs. Mayor and Co., merchants
and hop factors, who were really the defendants in
the cause, that the hops had been fraudulently ob-
tained from them, and had not come legaLy into the pos-
session of the plaintiff. There were • number of other pleas
put upon the record, but the one above-mentioned was the
substantial question the jury were called upon to decide.—
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Kennedy were for the
plaintiff; and Serjeant Shee, Mr. Peacock, and Mr Lush
for the defendants. The plaintiff, Mr. Elijah Eyre,
carries on the business of a brewer at Lynn, in Nor-
folk, and is also partner with a gentleman named
Chester, in the corn trade, in the isms town. His nephew
end rm-in-law, Mr. Thomas Eyre, is engaged as an ale
hrewer, and also in the corn trade, in London, and some time
ego be become acquainted with a Mr. S. Bradley, who is also
in the corn trade, and had a stand at the Corn Exchange.
These latter gentlemen had a good many transactions in trade
together, and about the latter end of last year, Bradley awed
Thomas Eyre 9001. for some malt that he had purchased of
him. Bradley could not pay the amount when the usual
period of credit in the corn-trade expired, and about the
month of November Mr. Eyre praised him for payment.
Bradley represented that he was unable to pay cash, but
suggested that he had a quantity. of hops to dispose of, which
he wished Mr. Eyre to take instead of money. He pro-
duced some samples of hops, and Mr. Eyre, being aware that
his uncle was in want of such an article, showed the samples
to him; but at that time he declined to purchase, and no-
thing was done until December, when an arrangement was
come to for the purchaee of a large quantity of hops from
Bradley. These hope, Bradley obtained from Mears.
Mayor and Co., upon the usual understanding in
the trade, that they ware to be paid for, half
cash, and half by bill at three months, but not
a farthing was ever paid by Bradley to Messrs. Mayor and
Co., and very shortly alter the transaction he became bank-
rupt, and those gentlemen were the losers of the whole
value of the hops, which exceeded 1,0001. It appeared that
Mr. Thomas Eyre sold the hope to his uncle, but as there
was at the time • debt due from him to the firm at Lynn, no
cash passed in the transaction, but credit was given him
in their books for the value. The hops were sent to the de-
fendant's wharf to be shipped to the plaintiff, but were
stopped by Messrs. Mayor and Co., and this proceeding gave
rise to the present action. Mr. Thomas Eyre was called on
behalf of the plaintiff, and be detailed the transaction that
took place with Bradley, nearly in the terms above stated.
He said he had been in the habit of having business trans-
actions with hint for several years, and in November,
Bradley owed him a sum of 9001. for malt, and he
was also his debtor upon other matters in business,
to • considerable amount. He said that, upon
his representation it would be an accommodation to
him to take hops instead of cash, he consented to do so,
knowing that his uncle was in want of them ; but he be-
lieved at the time he bought them that they were Bradley's
own property, and he knew nothing of Megan. Mayor in
the transaction. Bradley, he said, was always looked upon
as • solvent and respectable person upon the earn-market,
and he dealt with him as such, and subsequently resold the
hops in question to his uncle in the ordinary course of busi-
ness. In creel-examination, the witness said he hod re-
peatedly applied to Bradley for payment for the malt he had
sold him, and that he had put him off with different excuses,
but he still considered him a solvent person. He likewise
admitted that Bradley told him he should get out of his
difficulties; by a marriage with a rich young lady.
(A ;laugh.) It also appeared that, at the time of
the sale of the hops to his uncle, he was indebted
to him in a much larger amount hen they covered.
The witness also further stated that, at the time be pur-
chased the hops of Bradley, he wanted him to give him half
cash, and let the remainder go on account for his debt,
but be said he refused to snake any such arrangement, and
insisted that the whole amount of the hops should go in
liquidation of the debt due from Bradley, although he said
• did promise him that when he received some money that
he expected, he would lend him some.—Serjeant Shee, for
the defence, after remarking upon the manner in which the
goods had been obtained from Messrs. Mayor, by • man who
so shortly afterwards became a bankrupt, and Ws deprived
them of the whole of the value of their property, mil that the
reel ground of defence was, that the sale Mlle hope by BrefEey
to Thee. lyre was the result of a frandbdoist undenetraffing
Wanes them, and that the latter botowelag that
wee 'aspirant, and set in • modifies le prg idth arsikaa
resamited that he should obtain the begs aid bond the
over to him, ire order that his debt mi6t be sussed at the
expire of the respectable gesmismen who were the reel de-
isieste in the soden, sad wise were to be detrenftei of their
pragerty kr tub wpm. Its said ha &sok eall
se a Mame, awl he would poem that Themes Arm
to pay WV auk frt the liem but when hp nipsyseernM7f
them, be mho& to pay• Ai& hid**; width thole
ebeendmagis, be should =tend that Timm Imam
Isgalyliftniud of the hops, sad, thank'', could not
=pee of them—and, upon this ground, that the
were entitled to • verdict.—Samuel Brad-
kp yes *ea examined. He stated that the agtwrneat
with Themes Eyre was that he should give Na
half wish for the hop, and the other half was to go to the
meant °few debt he owed bias; but ha said that Kr. Eyre
afterwards refuted to let him have the sash, as he had pro-
mised, end ha was cooseguently unable to pay Mews.
Mayer. In aroes-examination, the witness said tkat In the
tined the trenmetion nepotist the lops, he owed lb.
T. Byre 1,3001. altogether. He else odd thse be aid Mr. Nyth
two &baboon' respecting what be bed der whit= melt
he had purchased M him, sad he sifted that when he
ins premed by Mr. Eyre hr mama for the seek, he
thersated far not paying him by aping that be bad itie=
demi stensity " locked up" In begs, sad led kith to
thin the bops were his own property, act it
tint k was met gani Air repelled semmusientimeZeie
Eyre semmted to Woe the begs isles& et =Say. It also
:Crdad en laths tine of ids =im= be bed ear-
they e=enve tranagilemo la bop p in* pis with
=my et= pelmet* ben is tandem. SIM ismaimtary
with= no dna pat in, and wen the be of Mesas
Mpg sad Ohm= Mktg prothogi gad esemdmed, it appeared
that Oa tommolies seinen theaS:l: been entered in
the reveal memoir, sad swill gives to Thomas
Eyre kr the aioast—Mr. then made a
=wheals
IS upon the ifielhadients' case. The
skied bskre the jury in this
position: he
the he bed dial no wrong ; he had
gems into the essermiskst, awl there ia an bobourable sad
sksightionmell =math bid =de s =shine ef • quantity
of bops Mete bogs night bath ban shake' kepropetly
tram Meese. Niger het whet bed the piled' to de witk
that t Ile knew wit& of Mom Mart se of any trams-
sedan between than &Wig tad W.11:6fa172/11dv-
lag • .pia Ms, wore te dope= or yaw-
piety, it ea =died, dime that
in sass trsesenima
that took
teistelitils tine ent.imirtirki niestatt olderepgeoPsi if
the leademem sr the nem= hawse* pill he than hay:
wadi be le tonere it to the porty Ikea mhos it
W=a ethaiwed. He sondaded theithy that
Bradley, what apposed& halkepreetatleme-
actioa, amid set have been looked in the nen=
in say seer Meath= that of a and nopeohible
pommy kr ft appeared that he bad eslesdva Ida
seine of the Mot respectable fines la the City of
sad*, that wee Weida dearly proved by Kum *wog
themselves, fay if Slay had not bitved him Mlle •
OM w, it was not likely that they would ham Is=