The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN e. THE 00VIRNORS OP THE POOR OP Bats-
TOL.—AUTHORITY OP THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS TO
INCLUDE THE CITY OF BRISTOL IN • POOR-LAW AUDIT i
Dianticr.—The Attorney-General moved for a rule calling ,
on the governors of the poor of the city of Bristol to show ;
cause why a writ of mandamus should not lame, command-
ing them to submit their accounts for the half year ending ,
with the 25th of March, 1846, to the auditor of the district ,
within which, for the purpose of auditing such accounts, the ,
city of Bristol is situated. The affidavits on which he moved '
showed that under various acts of parliament, consolidated i
by an act passed in the 3rd Geo. IV., the laws for the relief
of tho poor in the city of Bristol are administered by a cor- ,
potation, which, under the name of the governors of the poor
of the city of Bristol, has the authority and duties of over-
seen of the poor within certain parishes, and also the power
of auditing the accounts of the moneys expended under its
orders. In the year 184.5 the Poor-law Commissioners
issued an order, under the 32d sec. of the 7th and Bth Vict.,
c. 101, for forming a district for the purpose of auditing the '
accounts of certain parishes and unions in Wiltshire and '
Somersetshire, so far so those accounts related to the relief of
the poor. That district comprised the whole territory
over which the authority of the governors of the
Bristol poor extends, and the chairman and deputy chair-
man of that corporation subsequently voted for a gentleman
named Whitaker, who had offered himself as a candidate
for the office of auditor, and was afterwards appointed to it.
Mr. Whitaker attended, &tending to notice given, for the
purposed of
ear :Vett:Lg. accsamed, .u.nuts
mofetthie,yooaripwo7stalionto fsuorbniiiit et
them to him, grounded on a resolution of the governors
which denied the necessity of appointing an auditor, and the
authority of the Poor-law Commissioners to include within
any auditing district the territory subject to the governors of
the poor of Bristol. The objection to the authority of the
commissioners was, that by the 32nd section of the 7 and 8
Vic., e. 101, they were only empowered to include
" parishes " or " anions " within an auditing dis-
trict ; and that the district administered by the governors
was neither a parish nor a union. He, however, submitted
that as the original Poor-law Amendment Act was incorpo-
rated with the 7 and g Vic., c. 131, and defined the word
" parish" as having, along with other meanings, that of any
number of parishes united for any purpose. or incorporated
under any local act, the objection could not be supported.
The court granted the application.
COOKE V. TONKIN.—LIARILITT OP A MEMBER OF THE
, PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE OP A RAILWAY COMPANY POR
ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED BY THE SOLICITOR, THE,
APPLICATION OP TNN FUNDS BRING TESTED IN A
MANAGING COMMIIIMIL This was an action by the
proprietor of the °sprit Chronicle to recover the price
el advertisements of the Oxford, Theme, High Nr -
awake, and Uxbridge Junction Railway Company,
• inmeted in that japer. the cause was tried before the Under-
, obseillt of sad a verdict returned far the plaintiff
far As soommit dolma A rule nioi for a new trial was subse•
r wady 'Wood by Yr. PYan, on the grounds—first, that
as the solicitor of the company had ordered the advertise-
meets to be inserted it was he, and not the defendant, or
any other member of the provisional or managing committee,
that was liable to the plaintiff for the price of then • and,
secondly, that as the advertisements had been inserted alter
the appointment of a managing committee, of which the
plainuff had had notice. and the prospectus, contained
the following clamo : " Until flu act of parliament be
obtained, the affairs will be under the control of
a committee of management. to whom powers will be
given to allot the shares and apply the funds of the company
in payment of all proper expenses in the formation of the
eompeny and otherwise, the plaintiff ins bound to give
credit to the managing committee tely.—Mr. Maynard now
showed cause against the rule, and contended-1. That the
solicitor could not be held liable, in the abloom of proof of a
amp to hold the solicitor liable under such eircomatances.
' 2. not the managing committee was the mere agent of the
provisional committee, and entitled to pledge its credit —Mr.
Plain was heard in support of the rule.—The court took
time to consider its judgment.