The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-21 00:00:00

1 ato Erittiltsrna.

LAW NOTICES.—Tuts DAY.
Cow= or Cnancear. Westminster, at 10.—Appeals Corre r.
Lowndes, part heard ; Watts.. Hyde, part beard; variation V. Poster
(2) • Slacken v. Dan son • Hawks e. HowelL
'VICII-CHANCILLOke COUNTS, Westminster, at 10.—Before Sir L.
ShadwelL Mations continued, and Terry r. Wither, cause
part heard. Before Sir J. Knight Bruce Esparto Bawnee,
bankrupt.. Petition by order. Causes, Be.: Law T. Law,
golar4er Altkin v. Sumner, ditto; Day v. Dodd, ditto;
V. Boutledge, ditto; Wilcox v. Cooke, ditto; Bright
Clarke • Milne v. Bamford (2); Miami v. Most= (I) ;
Bogor 'Beare ; Higgins= v. Levy; Grayson v. Deakin; Hodgson
V. Shaw (2) ; Weston v. Radford; Dona= v. Patterson; GuaniU v.
Biamore ; Teeing v. Howard; Shelswell v. I'reedy. Before Sir J.
Wigram—Robertson v. Southgate, motion for judgment. Short
causes and petitions, the unopposed Out. Causes, Be.: Penningons
v. Buckley ; Tapperell v. Taylor Parka Parka v. Odell ; Carbide r. Elliott ;
Handford .. }landlord; Maxwell v. Kibblewbite; Porter.. Porter.
ROLLS Conan, Westminster, at 10.—Cauaea, am, by consent, and
short causes. To be spoken to—Hamiltm v. Lawler (2) ; Attorney-
General General.. Irensiongen' Company; Attoeney.G. meal .. Corporation
of Plymouth, lu re Best and Dania. After which motions.
The Covers or Queues Barren, CONNON PLeas, and Evermore&
will at in Banos.
CROWN-OMM Nov. 20.—Da and places for holding the Special
Commiadans of Oyer and T and Gaol Delivery for the munty
and city of York :—County of York, Dec. 5, at the cantle of York;
City of York, lams day, at the Guildhall of the city of York.

EQUITY COURTS.—YEBTERDLY.
Before the Lord Chtuvellor.

THR Donn OF LEEDS e. EARL AMHERST AND OTHERS.
—WAST/L—COMPENSATION.—This was an appeal from a
decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England. The bill was
filed by the present Duke of Leeds against the executors of
the late duke, his father, who died in 1838, and it claimed
compensation out of his personal estate for waste committed I
by him on a family estate, called Kiveton Hall, in Yorkshire,
of which he, the late duke, was tenant for life, and the pre-
sent duke was tenant in tail. The waste charged began
about the year 1819, and consisted of the taking down of the
family mansion, cutting timber, &c., and converting the
whole estate into a farm. The Vice-Chancellor decreed for
compensation, which was ascertained at the sum of 25,0001.
The appeal from that decree was argued a few days ago.
The Lord Chancellor, in giving his judgment, observed
upon the arguments in defence of the waste, which was not
denied ; first, acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff was
alleged, and next it was said that the lapse of time allowed
by him before filing his bill was a bar to the suit. But these
arguments were of no avail. There was no proof of acqui-
escence, and the plaintiff claimed compensation as soon as he
came into possession of the estate. He was under age, or
abroad, while the tesant for life was doing the waste, and
was not entitled to compensation until after the death of the
tenant for life. His lordship having gone at great length
into the facts of the case, and the arguments upon them,
came to the conclusion that the Vice-Chancellor's decree was
perfectly right, and that the appeal should 1)3 dismissed with
costs.

Before the Master of the Roils.
RAUWORTH V. PEMBERTON. —INJUNCTION. PROVI-
SIONAL COMMI'MZEMEN.—Mr. Turner moved for an injunc-
tion on behalf nf Mr. John. Thomas Rauworth, the plain-
tiff in this suit, who was a provisional committeeman in the
Direct London and Exeter railway company, one of the rail-
way schemes of the year 1845, but which, in consequence of
errors in the engineering department, and, as it was alleged,
mismanagement on the part of the managing body of the
provisional committee, never came before parliament. It
appeared that at a meeting of the shareholders, held in
December, 1845, Dr. Phillimore and Mr. John David Cham-
bers, a barrister, and Recorder of Salisbury, together with
Sir Bruce Chichester, three of the provisional committee,
were intrusted as a sort of special committee to wird up the
affairs of the company ; and actions being brought against
members of the provisional committee by shareholders for
return of their deposit-money, some of which were brought
to trial and successful, the above gentlemen set on foot a
subscription amongst the members of the provisional com-
mittee to raise a fund to repay the shareholders a dividend
on their deposits. The plaintiff, however, refused either to pay
his deposits on the shares which were allotted to him as a provi-
sional committeeman or to subscribe to the above fund. He was
under these circumstances beset with actions by share-
holders for return of their deposits. And to relieve himself
he filed this bill for an injunction to restrain the actions. A
case of collusion was alleged between the plaintiffs in the
actions and those of the provisional committee who had been
concerned in managing its affairs, especially Dr. Phillimore
and Mr. Chambers But this was strongly denied by them.
It appeared indeed that the object of the shareholders in
bringing their actions was to make the plaintiff pay up his
deposits an 4 subscribe to the fund above mentioned. —The
case was not concluded.

Before Vioe-Chancellor Wigram.
KIRBY V. MASH.—TRUSTEE ORDERED TO PAY THE
COSTS OP A SUIT OCCASIONED BY IRIS OWN VEXATIOUS
CONDUCT.—The defendant was the sole acting trustee of the
plaintiff's marriage settlement, under which the latter was
entitled to the dividend of 10001. for his life. The defendant,
whose residence was distant twelve miles from that of the
plaintiff, had refused to pay the dividends of the trust fund to
the order of the plaintiff, or in any other manner than to the
plaintiff in person, at the house of the defendant. Under
these eircum.tances the present bill was filed, praying for
payment of all arrears of the dividends, and that the defen-
dant might be removed from the office of trustee. Mr. Ro-
milly and Mr. Moore argued the ease for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Terrell for the defendant.
His Honour held that the conduct of the defendant had
been vexatious, and ordered that the arrears shou'd be paid
into court, and that the costa of the suit should be paid by
the defendant.

(Before Vlce-Cluuscellor Knight Bruce.)
WESTWOOD V. SLATER.—CONSTRUCTION OF SETTLE-
XENT.—FAILIJRE OP GIFT TO NEXT OF KIN.—By a settle-
ment dated the 14th December, 1840,Samuel Welles assigned
certain stock to trustees,upon trust, as to twelve-fifteenth parts
thereof, to dispoee thereof as follows, namely, as to one
portion, to pay the dividends thereof to his daughter,
Elizabeth C. Stephens, for her separate use for life, and to
pay the capital to her children, if sons, at their age of 21,
or if daughters, at their age of 21 or marriage ; as to a
further portion, to apply the same in the same manner for
the benefit of the settler's daughter, Charlotte Fraser, and
her children ; and as to the remaining portion, to apply the
same in the same manner for the benefit of the settlor's
daughter, Ann Bell (afterwards Ann Westwood) and her
children. And the settlement contained a declaration, that
if there should he no child or children of the said Elizabeth
C. Stephens, Charlotte Fraser, and Ann Westwood, who
should live to gain a vested and transmissible interest in the
said 12-15th parts of the said trust funds, under the said in.
denture, then the trustees should pay the whole of the said
12.15 th parts of the said stock unto the next ef kin ef the said
Samuel Welles. Samuel Welles died in August, 1807, leav-
ing his said three daughters his only children surviving
him. Mrs. Freakr died without issue in 1816, and Mrs.
Westwood died without issue in 1839. Mrs. Stephens
is living, and has children, daughters, who have married.
The question was, whether Mrs. Stephens, having survived
both her sisters, was entitled as " next of kin " of Samuel
Welles, to those portions of the 12-15 the of the fund which
had been settled upon her sisters and their children, or whe-
ther in the events that had happened, the words " next of
kin of the said Samuel Welles," were wholly inoperative, on
the ground that they were intended to operate only in case
of all the daughters of the settler dying without issue, when
the whole fund would be payable over. Supposing those
words to be inoperative, the fund would revert to the settlor,
and pass under his will. Mr. Russell and Mr. H. Humphries
appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr. Wigram, Mr. Chandless,
Mr. Teed, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Mickeson, appeared for
several of the defendants. Mr. Malin, on the part of Mrs.
Stephens, referred to several eases, and particularly to Doi
V. Darrell, 5 Term Reports, 518, and Doe v. Wonky
East, 416.
His Honour.—This is a dispute, not between one of two
claimants under a settlement, but between the settlor him-
self and a person who alleges that something has been given
to that person by the settlement; which allegation, those
who represent the estate of the settlor deny. Without ques-
tioning either of the cases mentioned by Mr. Melia, I am of
opinion that this particular instrument exhibits an intention
that the next of kin of the testator should not take any thing,
if there should be any child of either daughter who should
live to gain a vested interest in the fund in question, or any
part thereof. Now, there is at least one child of one daugh-
ter who has lived to attain a vested interest in the fund in
question, or some part thereof.
CERZON v. BROWN.—LIABILITIES OF RAILWAY SPE-
CELATORS.—RIONTS or SECEITARY.—The bill was filed
by three of the provisional directors of a proposed " Hem
Bay and Canterbury Railway Company" against the other
provisional directors, and the secretary, praying that the
liabilities of the several plaintiffs and defendants might
be adjusted, and that their contributions to the
debts of the concern might be settled, and the affairs of the
concern wound up, and for an injunction to restrain certain
actions which had been brought by the secretary maintop*
of the plaintiffs, John Stewart, for the amount of his salary.
The defendant Wilson, the secretary, demurred to so much
of the bill as prayed an injunction. The bill alleged that
the scheme had been formed at a public meeting which took
place on the 15th October, 1845, at which the plaintiff and
Wilson were present ; and that, on the 20th of the same
month, the plaintiff Stewart had agreed to become a direc-
tor, on the representation by Wilson that a sufficient
number of allotments bad been made, and deposits
paid, to satisfy any claim, up to that time : that it
turned out, however, that in the following December no
payments had been made : that in February last, the con-
cern being likely to be discontinued, a committee of finance
had been appointed, and that they had issued circulars
calling on the directors to contribute to the ex penam : that
the plaintiff, John Stewart, had responded to the call, and
paid 351., but that no one else had paid a farthing : that an
action had been brought against him for 491. for rent of the
committee-room, which sum he had paid : that, finding
Stewart so willing a paymaster, the defendant Wilson had
brought two actions against him for two quarters' salary,w bleb
however, Stewart resisted. The bill then alleged that out of
the 351. paid by Stewart for contribution, the finance c im-
mittee had paid 281. to Wilson in part of hissalary, under an
agreement or understanding that Wilson should not Lae any

proceedings against the defendants, the finance committee.
Mr. Willcock ..nd Mr. Cankrini appeared in support of the
demurrer; Mr. Russell and Mr. Bin for the
Honour, in the course of the argurnee. said that the word
"understanding" in the bill was much too vague. There
appeared to be nothing more in the bill than this the
tiff
p brought an action sgain-t two or three :Imo= for a
legal demand : the bill was brought by those liqelaantet
alleging that the demand, if any, was a demand sue from
them and others, and that the plaintiff at law, colluding with
the others, was suing them only.—Mr. Cankrien submittal
that :he bill did not even go so far as that: for though the
word " collude " was once used, there was no substantial
charge of collusion. His Honour, at the close of the argu-
ment, allowed the demurrer.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.
In the course of the morning Lord John Russell, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Auckland, Earl Grey,
Viscount Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Wood, entered the
court, and took the oaths in respect of their several offices,
as Ministers of her Majesty.
BARNETT IL COT.—RIGHT or TWO County MAGIS-
TRATES TO THE PRIVILEGES OF • MAGISTRATE OF THE
POLICE COURTS OP THE METROPOLIS, WHEN ACTIN() IN A
DISTRICT FOIL WHICH NO SUCH MAGISTRATE HAS BEEN
APPOINTED.—Mr. Bramwell had on a former day applied
for a rule to show cause why the nonsuit in this case should
sot be set aside and a new trial had. The action was for
trespaes and false imprisonment against two magistrates of
the county of Middlesex, for an act done whilst they were
exercising, under the 3 & 4 Viet., cap. 84, the functions of a
police mngietrate of the police courts of the metropolis, in a
district within the Metropolitan Police Acts, for which no
magistrate had been appointed under the acts last named.
Notice of action had been given to them after the expiration
of three months, and before the expiration of six months from
the time of committing the trespass complained of, and
the plaintiff had been nonsuited on the ground
that the notice ought to have been given within
the three months. He had submitted to the court that
as these magistrates were appointed by the general commis-
sion for Middlesex, and not under the Metropolitan Police
Acts, they were not entitled to the protection conferred by
the latter. And further, if that were not so, that as the
Metropolitan Police Acts were not public and general acts,
hut public, local, and personal acts within the sth and 6th
Vic., c. 97, the notice was good. The court postponed its
decision.—Lord Denman now said that the county magis-
trat,s, when discharging the duties of a magistrate of the
police courts of the metropolis, were entitled to the protec-
tion which was the privilege of such a magistrate; and
that the court considered the Metropolitan Police Acts to be,
as the legislature itself had classed them, public and ge-
neral, and not public, local, and personal acts. The appli-
cation, therefore, must be refused.
SLATER O. HODSON. CUSTODY OF PARISH poet:-
XIINTS.—Mr. Knowles, Q.C., had on a former day applied
to the court fur a rule to show cause why the plaintiff's
verdict in this case, which was a feigned issue to try the
right of certain townships in Carlisle to have separate over-
seers, should not be set aside and a new trial had on the
ground of the improper reception of evidence. At the trial
there had been produced certain bastard), bonds executed
between the years 1716 and 1728, and in order to show that
they came from the proper custody, the master of the work-
house of the Union in which the place referred to in them is
situated, wee called. He stated that in the year 1842, a cart,
driven by some of the paupers came to the workhouse, and th►t
in it there was a mass of loose papers, which, as they appeared
to relate to a parish of the union, be had taken in and put
into a spare room, rather than leave them in the street ; but
who the paupers were that brought them, whence they were
brought, or to whom they belonged, be did not know. The
bastardy bonds in question were part of those papers. lie
had submitted therefore that these documents bad not come
from such a custody as rendered them receivable in evidence.
The court having taken time to consider its decision, Lord
Denman now said, that the court thought the place in which
these bonds had been found, a natural and reasonable re-
polity for the custody of parish documents, and therefore that
the application must be refused.

BAIL COURT.
IN THE MATTER. OF THOMAS COOPER.-CONDUCT OF
AN ArroaNEY.—The Attorney-Genteel moved for a rule
to show cause why Thomas Cooper, an attorney of this court,
should not be struck off the roll, and answer matter stated
in the affidavits on which the rule was moved. Cooper was
an attorney at Congleton, in Cheshire, and on the Ist of
January, he sent a letter to one Hancock, demanding pay-
ment on behalf of one Jamieson, of a debt of 3s. 7d., and
3s. 6d. for the letter. Hancock, on 16th February, went to
his office and settled the debt of 3e. 7d., and the receipt of
which was acknowledged on the letter, but retusad
to pay 35. Gd., whereupon Cooper gave him into ens-
'
tody for felony, for stealing the receipt. He was
taken before the magistrates, and the case dismissed,
Cooper having stated in his depositions that the
debt was paid and the costa not. Hancock brought an ae.
two for false imprisonment against Cooper, in which he
recovered damages, with 871. costs. In the April follow-
ing, Hancock received a summons in one of the courts of
the Duchy of Lancaster from Cooper, for a debt of Is , due
to Jamieson, and costa of summons, 75., the particulars of
demand showing that the debt was the same as that which
he had sworn already had been paid. Jamieson denied that
be had ever given Cooper any authority ta bring any action,
but merely to collect his debts. It was clear, therefore, that
this proceeding was adopted only from vindictive feelings
against Hancock, and that Cooper hail abused the position
which he held as an officer of this court.
Mr. Justice Patteson : Perhaps you had better take a rule
calling on the party to answer the matters in the affidavit.
THE QUEEN V. THE THAMES RAVEN DOCK AND RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.-MANDAMUS.-Mr. Montagu Chambers,
' with whom was Mr. Lush, moved for a rule calling on the
company to show cause why a return to a mandamus made
by them should not be granted as frivolous and evasive, and
why an attachment should not issue against those f the
directors who had been served with the order. It appeared
that a mandamus had been issued in June calling on the
company to pay a certain sum due to Sir George Stephen,
and if necessary to make a call on the shareholders so as to
enable them to pay
.it. It was centended that the return
was frivolous and evasive, and a contempt of court, inasmuch
as it had not :tided that the company had not funds to pay
the claim when the mandamus was served ; that they nad
pretended to obey the second portion of the order to make
a call by doing so four months after the mandamus
was served, and making it payable in January, when the
period for the return would have expired. It was also stated
by affidavit that one shareholder had paid a sum for the ex-
press purpose of discharging Sir G. Stephen's claim, which
was more than sufficient.
Mr. Justice Patteson said, there might be a rule to
quash the return, but he doubted if the rest of the motion
was according to the usual practice, nor did he know an in-
stance where it had been coupled with a motion to quash the
return as frivolous.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.
SHAW AND ANOTHER V. CLARILSON.—RAILWAY LlABl-
'atm.—This was an action for work and labour, brought
b 7 the plaintiffs, who arc printers and lithographers, in
etter-lane, against the defendant, as a provisional director
of the London, Portsmouth, and Chichester Railway. The
case was tried before Mr. Justice Cresswcll at the present
sittings at Guildhall, when a verdict was entered for the
plaintiffs, damages 6301. Mr. Serjeant Byles now moved for
a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial
upon affidavits. It appearen that the line in question was
projected in the summer of 1845, by two gentlemen (engi-
neers) of the name of Drayson, and that the plaintiffs
were employed to furnish the necessary plans, sec-
tions, &c., between the 13th August, 1845, and the 20th
December in the same year. It was proved that the first
order mentioned in the plaintiffs' bill of particulars was
given by one of the Draysona, and that the defendant did
not become a member of the company until the Ist Oct.,
184-5. At that time he was appointed chairman of the com-
pany, and a member of the provisional committee of
management. The present demand, therefore, comprised
only the items furnished by the plaintiffs subsequent to the
period when the defendant joined the company. On the
part of the plaintiff, evidence of conversations was given to
prove that the work was done by the plaintiffs for the com-
pany, and not for the Messrs. Drayson, the engineers. The
principal witness as to this fact was a clerk of the plaintiffs,
and he admitted that they bad often applied to Drayson for
the money, and bad received front him 2001., but they had
never made any application to the company nor to the secre-
tary ; nor had they, in fact, obtained any money on account
of the railway, except through Drayson. One of the Dray-
sons was called on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the object of
his evidence was, of course, to exonerate himself by fixing
the liability upon the company. Notwithstanding the
admissions made by these witnesses, and the evidence
adduced for the defendant, proving that no claim had ever
been made upon him by the plaintiffs, the jury found
a verdict for the plaintiffs. He (Mr. Serjeant Bylea)
contended that the result would have been other-
wise if the jury had not consisted of tradesmen.
He made the present application upon the affidavits of the
defendant and others, denying that any such conversations
as those referred to had ever taken place ; and he should
also be enabled to produce an affidavit from the defendant's
attorney upon the same subject.
The court granted a rule nisi, subject to the production of
the last-mentioned affidavits, and to its being of a satisfactory
nature.

COURTsittin OFp
in EX
HamCHEQUER.m
()
REYNELL V. LEWIS.—LIABILITy OF RAILWAY PRO-
VISIONAL Comfort itEMEN.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiff, an advertising agent, carrying 'At business is
Chancery-lane, against Mr. Kensington Lewis, of Stratford-
place, London, and Worcester-park, Surrey, as a member of
the provisional committee of the Central Kent Railway. At
the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, at the Middlesex
sittings after last term, it appeared that the defendant called
in September, 1845, at the offices of Messrs. Park's, Smith,
and Co., solicitors, of Bedford-row, and stated that he had
no objection to become a member of the provisional com-
mittee. His name was accordingly inserted in the advertise-
ments and prospectuses of the scheme, and in consequence of
an inaccuracy in his description he wrote a letter to the
Times newspaper, upon the 6th of November, stating that he
was not a member of the provisional committee of any railway
company, except the " Central Kent " and the " Middlesex
and Surrey Junction Railways." Upon the 16th of October,
in answer to a circular stating, that as a member of the pro-
visional committee, he might have an allotment of 150
shams, he wrote to the secretary to say he would accept
them. It also appeared that he interfered to prevent the
committee from allotting shares in December, and that he
had then called at the offices of the company, and having
inquired into the state of their finances, and the extent to
which they had then incurred expenses, he gave them credit
for their being extremely moderate. Part of the plaintiff's
demand had accrued due befere the defendant bemme a

.

member of the committee, and advertisements of the u•der-
taking had been inserted by the solicitors before the forma-
tion of the provisional committee. The only question being
as to the defendant's liabdity, the learned judge, in sum-
ming up the case, left it to the jury to determine upon
whose credit the advertisements had been inserted by the
plaintiff, and whether the defendant, by becoming • mem-
ber of the provisional committee, authorised the solicitors to
hold him out to the world as a person responsible for the
ordinary and necessary expenses, preliminary to the mim-
ing out of the scheme. A verdict having passed for the
•laintiff for 5781., a rule was subsequently obtained by the
Atimney-General to set it aside, and for a new trial upon
the gr,sund of misdirection.
Mr. gnowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Willa now
showed elms, why that rule should not be absolute. It was
impossible that the question could have been more correctly
left to the jury th2n it was ; if it was left to them to say
with whom the contact was made, the verdict would he
ambiguous, for it was quste clear that a contract made by an
authorised agent bound t;:e principal just as much as if
made by himself. The jury found that the defendant
authorised the solicitors to bold out bis name as
a person responsible for the preliminary. expenses,
and that credit was given by the plaintiff upon
the faith of that representation. The orders for the
insertion of the advertisements were given in every instance
by a clerk of Messrs. Parkes, Smith, and Co. It was
admitted that they were inserted according to orders, and
that the prices were usual and reasonable. The defendant
sanctioned the appointment of the solicitors, engineers, and
secretary, and after seeing their names in the published
advertisements and prospectuses of the proposed undertaking,
he authorised his name to be inserted as a member of the
provisional committee. He was, therefore, aware of the
liability he was incurring.
Mr. Baron Parke said the question was—what was the
state of things on the 26ta September, 1845, when the
defendant became one of the provisional committee, and
what were the duties and liabilities then undertaken by him ?
It did not appear that the orders fur these advertisements
were given upon the defendant's expressed authority; he
might possibly have altogether dissented from the necessity
of incurring the expenses of their insertion, and surely it
would not then be contended that he should be held responsible
for teem. For instance, if at a meeting of six committee-
men, five were of opinion that a certain ordershould begiven
to a tradesmen, and that the sixth altogether disapproved of
it—why should he be held responsible ? In such a case it
would be most unreasonable that the minority should be
held liable for the acts of the majority.
Mr. Baron Alderson.—l don't know that. At all events,
the tradesman who executes the order should have notice
tha' the party did not approve of it, and dissented from the
opinion of the majority of the meeting.
The Lord Chief Baron : The defendant must be taken to
he " a promoter," according to the precisions of the 7th and
Bth Vice, c. 110, although it appeared his name was never
regularly registered as such.—The learned counsel for the
plaintiff contended that provisional committees associated
themselves together as " partners" for the performance of
certain duties, and that they werejointly and severally liable
for all the preliminary expenses necessarily incurred for the
attainment of the objects for which they were appointed.—
The Attorney-General was about to proceed with his argu-
ment at four o'clock, when the court rose, and intimated that
the case would be resumed this morning.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
Before Mr. Secondary Potter.
BARNETT V. NEWTE. THE JAMAICA SOUTHERN,
EASTERN; AND NORTHER:4 RAILWAY.—This was a writ
of inquiry to assess diunages in an action brought against
the defendant, a gentleman of fortune, residing in Harley-
str et, Portman-square, as a managing director of the
Jamaica Southern, Eastern, and Northern Railway, for the
recovery of the sum of 1121. 3s. 2d., as the balance of an
account for goods and labour supplied to the above-named
company by the plaintiff, a stationer and printer in Buck-
lerabury.
The defendant having submitted to judgment, it was only
requisite for the plaintiff to show that the goods had been
supplied, and that the charges were reasonable. To effect this
Mr. Shiers, the company's secretary, was called, who deposed
to having transmitted orders to the plaintiff both for sta-
tionery and the printing of scrip shares, allotment letters,
prospectuses, and notice*. The dealings began in June,
1345, and continued throughout the mania up to lleu•mher,
when the hill amounted to 19'21. 3a. 2d., and the plaintiff
received 801., which he applied to the reduction of the first
part of the account ; and the items constituting the present
claim were all subsequent to the lit September, 1845.
The learned secondary held this evidence sufficient to en-
title the plaintiff to a verdict, which was accordingly entered
for 1121. 3s. 2d., with costs.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT—Cy:mm[lam..
Beare Mr. Commissioner Bullock.
TIDMAILSH v. NATHAM.—Ettsc PRETENCES.—Richard
Tidmarsh came before the court, to recover from the de-
fendant, Lewis Nathan, under the Small Debts Act,
21. Be. debt, and 5/. costs.—Defendant formerly carried
on business in Jewry-street, Aldgate, with a person named
Solomons, and was the patentee of an alarum for watches;
this patent now, he swore, did not belong to him ; although
he received an interest from it. In the early part of the year
he employed the plaintiff to sell some small wax-taper lights,
for which he way to pay him 2d. per thousand, telling him,
at the same time, that they were his own ;property; he now
stated them to be the property of Messrs. Swarttchild, of
Lombard-street, admitting, however, that at the time ho
engaged plaintiff he told him that they were his own, and
that he had 300,000 of them.—Mr. Buchanan submitted
that by the defendant's own showing he had fraudulently
contracted a debt, by telling the plaintiff that the property
he engaged him to 11(11 was his own, when he now swore that
it was not ; and, under the first section of the net, he should
call upon the court to commit him to prison for forty days,
fur the fraud in contracting the debt —The Judge said that
it appeared clear to him that the defendant had contracted
the debt upon a misrepresentation, and he must go to prison.
—Mr. Buchanan said that if he would agree to pay 2/. per
month he would not press for his committal.—Ultimately
the defendant agreed to pay.