The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN:B BENCH,

liar Pairs AT Octoroon.—Before toed Denman.
WESTON T. HILL.—CRIK. CON.—IL appeared that the
plaintiff in this case kept • foublichouse in Marylebone, and
the defendant, who was • livery stable keeper, lived not far
from him. They were on intimate terms, and it was stated
in the evidence that the defendant visited at the plaintiff's
house in his absence, and was, on one occasion, seen with his
arm round the waist of the wife. On the fast.day, the
plaintiff and defendant had arranged to leave town on some
excursion together, bat the plaintiff having been obliged to
go out, the defendant came for him before his return. When
he arrived he looked through the window of the parlour,
and there taw the defendant and his wife in such a position
as to induce him to believe that he bad been dishon-
oured. In order to obtain evidence of this, • person
was placed in such a position as to hear what occurred in an
interview between the plaintiff end defendant, in which the
former charged the latter with the offence. All, however,
that he heard the defendant say was, that although he had
not been guilty, he might have been.—For the defence it
was contended that this was only an attorney's action, and
that the mode which had been adopted to obtain an admis-
sion from the defendant was most discreditable.—Verdict for
the plaintiff. Damages, 2501.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nat Nays—Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., sod a London Special Jury.
WALLER v. BISHOP.—RAILWAY SPECULATIONS.—This
was an action brought by the plaintiff, a stock-
broker, to recover, under the following circumstances,
a sum of 3,925/. 17s. 3d., front the defendant, who
is • respectable merchant in the city. In 1845
a Mr. Cavallo became the promoter of a project
called the Dutch Hanoverian Railway. and a board of
directors, consisting, amongst others, of the Earl of Essex,
Captain Hamilton, a Mr. Ogle and the defendant, was
formed to carry out that undertaking. Although it was con-
sidered a bend frle and substantial scheme, it was appre-
hended it could not escape the effects of the celebrated panic,
and the directors therefore deemed it expedient to purchase
up a nullifier of shares, so that their value might be en
hanced, instead of becoming a drug in the market, and that
the project should not be disparaged by the general pressure
which then existed. On the 3rd of December, however,
they passed a resolution, at the instance of the defendant,
that ne such purchases should be made upon the responsi-
bility of the board without its special sanction, but that each
of them should be personally responsible for the shares he
ordered. At the instance of Mr. Cavallo, it ap-
peered the plaintiff was employed, as broker, by Mr.
Ogle. Shares to a large amount were purchased and
continued from time to time. The bought notes were
made out in Mr. Ogle's name, and sent to the directors'
offices every month regularly. The charges for continuances
were paid out of the funds of the company, in one instance
by the defendant himself, and in another by Cavallo, who
obtained the proceeds upon a cheque given him by Captain
Hamilton, upon the 20th of May, 1816. Matters thus stood
upon the 29th of May, when the plaintiff furnished his
account, debiting the company for 1,365 shares purchased by
Ogle's order, and demanding payment. On the Ist of July,
at a meeting of the directors, at which the defendant was
present, the plaintiff required a formal written acknow-
ledgment " that the shares had been purchased by the
order and directions of the board, and that his account
was, upon examination, found to be correct." Upon this
branch of the case a good deal of conflicting evidence was
given. On the one hand, it was proved that the defendant
had sanctioned the orders given by Ogle; and, on the other,
that he had known nothing of the transaction until the let
of July. That the plaintiff's accounts were collocated from
him, and on being asked to sign the letter recognising the
plaintiff's claim, as against the directors, that he refuel pe-
remptorily to do so, and then left the meeting. The letter
was, however, subsequently signed by Mr. Dickinson, the
secretary, vouched by Mr. Ogle to have beers written by di-
rection of the Board, and it was sent to the plaintiff by their
porter. Two letters, addressed from the company's offices, by
the defendant to Mr. Ogle, were given in evidence.
In one, dated June 17, 1816, the defendant stated that
" a note had been received from Mr. Waller (the
plaintiff), who had consented to carry over the shares, but
something conclusively should be one with him." In the
other, orr.tten on the 3rd of August ; the defendant expressed
a wish that " Mr. Waller's account should be made out from
the first transaction." The whole question, therefore, was
whether the defendant was liable. It was contended on his
behalf that buying shares to enhance their value in the
market was not within the ordinary course of the business of
the directors, and that orders given to purchase them were
therefore binding upon the individual who had given them,
and not upon the board. The defendant never directly
sanctioned or identified himself with Mr. Ogle's employment
of the plaintiff, but, on the contrary, he repudiated
his claim when it was first made against the directors
generally.—The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said
the only question was who should pay the plaintiff,
upon whom there was no imputation whatever. They
should consider whether, under all the circumstances, he
was not justified in thinking he had been employed by the
company; and that the defendant either actually knew, or
had the means of knowing, that the transactions for which
compensation was then sought had been done on the credit
of the company. He (the learned judge) never held a share
in a railway company in his life; he knew very little about
such matte's, but he did not think the directors were so very
much to be blamed for purchasing shares themselves., and
thereby preventing their undertaking, which was described
to be not a mere speculation hut a solid transaction, from
becoming a drug in the market, and having its shares hawked
about the stock-exchange at a discount. It appeared the
defendant. himself, and other directors, purchased shares
which they still held, their object manifestly being, not to
give them an artificial price, but to sustain the position in
the market which they conceived the merits of their project
entitled it to hold there.—The jury retired at a quarter after
are o'clock, and shortly after nine they returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages, 3,925 i. 17s. 3d. During their
deliberation, they unavailingly requested the parties to con-
sent to their discharge, on the ground that there Was no pro-
bability of their agreeing.—With this case, which occupied
the whole day, the sittings terminated.