The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-23 00:00:00

.
PurPose. Previous''', howelley to this Wilton had
taken the benefit of the Wok/4 Debtors' Act, and the
bond, which had been given ti, swore his costs, having been
inserted u • debt due to hi',, fis WS schedule, became vested
in the Provii°°Bl suifr.os as part of his estate. A ju,',,g.
WA had been toed on the bond, but being mom thin
tea years old, by the rule of court, before a scire fa,:iss could
hone. it was nevAstary that a motion should be
made, and
the provisional Assignee claimed to be made a party to the
Proceeding, I..‘m the benefit of the intolvenes estate.—lt was
now cor:,coded by Mr. Dill that this Man attempt, by a rule
ofSb;.s court, to enforce an order of the Court of Chancery
wr.ich the ies were unwilling to press in that court, le,,t
r'a'y hereby further an inquiry into the merits of
the ease ;_ that if proceeding' which had been taken
against Wilton in that court were carried on, an
opportuuiq would occur for reviewing the decision
which had been given, which could not be had other-
wise, and that this court bad no jurisdiction to enforce the
orders of the Court of Chancery.—lt was urged by Mr.
Martin, in support of the rule, that this was an application
, of the legal owner (the provisional assignee) of the sum ia
, question, being costs in this court by the ordinary legal-pot
otos laid down by the rule of court, and the insolvent kmil
nothing to do with it, and in fact had no righ
own court would
t to be heard.
If the provisional assignee did wrong,
is
deal with him for a breach of duty.
Mr. Justice Pennon expressed a wish to examine the affi-
davits before giving his judgment.

COURT OF EXCBe UER.
(Sittings hi Deo.) HEQ
BEADEL O. MORIIAY, BART.—THE RURAL POLICE AND
THE Meonernacy —The facts of this case were reported in
this journal of the 9th instant. The action was brought by
the plaintiff, a poulterer, residing at Stephenedge, in the
county of Huts, against Sir Robert Murray, a justice of the
pmee for that county, for having caused him to be arrested
by two policemen, named Goode and Rewires, upon a charge
o felony, which proved to hare been unfounded. A verdict
having missed for the defendant, Mr. M. Chambers obtained
a rule nisi, calling on the defendant to show cause why it
should not be set aside, and anew trial had, upon the ground
stated in affidavits, ripen which the learned counsel moved
that the defendant's only witnesses, the two policemen, had
been guilty of wilful perjury ; and, further, that they had
acknowledged it. NI. hen the rule nisi was granted, an inti-
mation was made by the court that in all probability the
affidavits would he satisfactorily answered, and the result of
to-day's proceedings proves that the predictions of Mr. Baron
Alderson, and tte other members of the court who expressed
that opinion, were perfectly correct.
Mr. Serjeant Shee applied to show cause why the rule
should not be absolute. The affidavits of Goode and
Rewires, upon which he moved, contradicted in every par-
ticular the statements rustle on behalf of the plaintiff, and
reiterated their evidence at the trial.—Mr. N. Chambers
supported the rule, and contended that his affidavits hail not
been answered.
The court, however, without any hesitation, expressed
their opinion unanimously that the affidavits had been very
satisfactorily and properly answered upon the main point at
issue, namely, the evidence of the policemen, and that there
was no reason whatever for disturbing the verdict.—The rule
should, therefore, be discharged.
BRINELL O. LEWIS.—LIABILITY OP RAILWAY PRO-
VISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN WHO DID NO OTHER ACT THAN
MERELY CoNSENTINO TO HAVE THEIR NAMES Pt BLISILED
AS SUCH —The Attorney-General and Mr. Cowling were
heard this morning at very considerable length in support of
the rale, ca.lincg upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the
verdict entered for 5781. should not be set aside, and for a new
trial on the ground of misdirection. The fact was, (observed
the learned counsel), that hitherto railway committee s
were held liable for anything and everything with which
there was the slightest imaginable pretext for saying they
were connected in that capacity. The construction put
upon what was sufficient to constitute their liability, arose
altogether from the press, and to such an extent lad
matters gone, that it was only necessary to open i.ny
case, against • provisional committeeman before a jury,
when they were ready to find for the plaintiff at mice.
However, the decision of Baron Parke, in the case of
"Lowe tr. Wilson" had the effect of changing the opinions
previously eo adverse to committeemen, and from thence-
forward, it appeared that, at least in some eases, an express
authority should be given before they could be held re-
sponsible for the acts of the agents of the company. In the
present case there was no direct authority given 11 the
defendant, and it was submitted to the Chief Baron, who
tried the case, that the two questions he should have left to
the jury were, first, with whom was the contract mete? and
secondly, was there an express authority given to the solici-
tors, or any evidence whatever, that the defendant had
authorised his name or credit to be pledged by the solicitors or
anyone else for the payment of the plaintiff's demand. The
defendant had done no act in relation to the conduct
of the affairs of the company—he merely permitted
hit name to be used as a member of the provisional commit-
tee ; now, then, could it be held that he bad authorised
the insertion of advertisements, of which there was no
evidence he had ever known anything? It was not the duty
of solicitors to issue advertisements, except in the cased
parliamentary notices, and if they thought pr slier to give
ti
orders which it clearly was not their duty, as solid= to
give, why
.should the provisional committee be sir Is
have sanctioned or authorised these orders, fly r lnwsofi
principal and agent provisional committeemen were alto-
gether exonerated under such circumstances. They were
not partners—the act of one could not bind another, and
why should the act of the solicitors bind them all ? The
defendant, as a provisional committeeman, could not inter-
fere with or control the management of th., affairs of the
company, he could not even attend a meeting of the
managing committee: he was merely a patron of the under-
taking, and even if he w a omoter he should not be held
responsible, except for his own personal acts. The 7 and 8
Vict., c. 110, regulated the respective rights of shareholders
and promoters, but mentioned nothing of provisional com-
mitteemen. That statute required the written consent of the
promoter of a railway, to act in that capacity, to be regis-
tered, and he should hold one or more shares, whereas a pro-
visional committeeman need not take any.
Mr. Baron Alderson : These cases are very much embar-
rassed by considciing the liability of provisional committee-
men as if they were partners. It is not so, because the word
is not yet properly understood, nor are the duties and liabili-
ties of provisional committeemen yet sufficiently ascertained.
'
I don't know, u a legal question, what the liability of a
promoter of a railway is, although I, of course, know what
the liabilities of partners are, because the word " partner"
has a definite legal meaning which the term " promoter"
has not.
Mr. Cowling contended that at the utmost a promoter
could be held liable only for the orders given by his co-pro-
moter, and here the order was given to the plaintiff by Messrs.
Parkes, Smith and Co., who had no express authority to do
so. The secretary was a much more competent person than
the solicitors to order the insertion of advertisements, yet,
it would he going too far to hold that even he could pledge
the defendant's credit without his express consent. It should
not be taken for granted that advertisements were " neces-
saries"—they might have been inserted, as many others were,
not for a bond fide purpose, but to give a fictitious value
to the scrip in the market, and it was remarkable that
the shares in the Central Kent line were very soon at a pre-
mium ,• of course juries were, therefore, likely to be ea'ily
persuaded that advertisements were very essential " neces-
saries," as their publication probably produced • considerable
increase in the price of the shares. If courts inferred liabi-
lity, unless it was clearly contracted, the result would be '
that solicitors, engineers, and others, who bad a direct inte-
rest in " getting up " such projects as the line of railway in
question, might incur expenses to any amount and be them-
selves free, while unfortunate provisional committeemen,
who had no power to interfere at all in the management of
the affairs of the company, were to be exclusively held re-
sponsible. For these reasons it was submitted that the
direction of the learned judge wan wrong, and that there
should be a new trial.
The Lord Chief Baron said that as there were six other
cases in the paper, in which the same question was involved
as in that which they bad now heard argued, and as it was
very important that the matter should be definitively settled,
the court would suspend their judgment until they had
heard all the arguments upon the subject.
WYLD O. Hors tNs.—This ease was then called on. It
was an action against • committeeman of the Peterborough
and Nottingham Junction Railway, for nape engraved by
the plaintiff, who is a mapeeller and engraver at Charing-
croft. The verdict passed for the plaintiff for 6751., upon
the ground that the defendant was liable (as in the last case),
because be had consented to become a member of the pro-
visional committee. A rule nisi having been obtained to set
that verdict aside, on the ground that it was against evidence,
Mr. Martin now showed cause against it, and contended
that provisional committees were associations precisely ana-
logous to ordinary partnerships, and were, in every respect,
subject to the same rules. Each member was entitled to
pledge the credit of the ether. When provisional committee-
men undertook the payment of expenses, and furnished no
coney to do so, they should be held responsible for the acts of
their agents, by whose orders "necessaries" were supplied.
Naps, Per instance, were rendered indispensable by the act of
peeliament, and it was known they could not be got fur nothing.
Mr. Baron Alderson : Yes, but it must be recollected that
provisional committeemen expeeted deposits, and they knew
that the act of parliament allocated a certain part of them
towards the payment of those expenses.—Mr. Martin had
not concluded his argument at four o'clock, when the court
TOM.

The arguments in the remaining railway eases will be re-
sumed this (Monday) morning, and the special paper will
be taken afterwards.
Pore AND OTHERS O. CLIO°, EXECOTOIL—The defen-
dant was executor of the late Mr. Turner, and a report of
the arguments of counsel having appeared in °or paper of
the 18th inst., we have been requested to state that Mr.
Turner did not (as alleged by counsel) die insolvent, but, on
the contrary, that he lata-large fortune, consisting o!'exten-
sive estates in Cheshire, which have been inherited by his
grandaughter.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
Tax ATLAB.—DAMAGES.—The Austrian polacco Piciolo
Oscar, richly laden, ran into Falmouth harbour, while pro-
ceeding on her voyage, and anchored in Carrick Roads. On
the 25th of February, the Atlas took shelter there also, the
wind blowing a gale from south by west. She had a pilot on
board, and though in broad day, the Atlas ran into the Aus-
trian's midship, doing so much damage, that the action was
i entered for 1,0001. The owners of the Atlas pleaded the fact
of haring a pilot on board in bar of the claim, while the
pilot swore that he gave orders to the crew, when 200
fathoms off the potato°, to let go the anchor, and to starboard
the helm. These orders were not promptly obeyed, and to
this fact the collision was ascribed. For the owners of the
pisiolo Oscar Dr. Hayford and Dr. Phillimore appeared, and
aske.i the court to pronounce for the damage and casts.—Dr.
Adds
and Dr. Robinson were heard contra, ands tated
that the pilot was to blame, and held the owners of the Atlas
must be dismissed with costs. The court said the case was
attended with some dideulties. The Austrian ship was