The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-06 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING JANUARY 6, 1866.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.

division, and an amendment giving permission to owners
to move cows a distance not exceeding 100 yards along •
public road to another part of the farm was also lost, on a
division, by one vote. Several resolutions, embodying the
recommendations al the oortimittes as stated by Mr. Cherry,
were proposed and carried, and Ooloael Bloody, the chief
cooatable, was instructed to apply for power to appoint 20
additional offioers to assist in currying out the order.,
which will be published in the local papers to-day, and
coots into effect at once.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.-JAN. 5.
(Before Kr. Fonyth, Q.C., and a Common Jury.)

ROYAL V. MOORE —PROMOTE= PUBLIC COMPANIES.
This was as action to recover an attorney's bill. Mr.
Willis appearing fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Henry James
for the defendant, who is an architect, and who pleaded a
set-off for plane of an hotel.
Mr. Willis, for the plaintiff, said that his client', claim
being admitted, the only question was as to the set-off.
The learned counsel would therefore deal with the claim
made by the defendant for plans which he had tarnished.
In 1863 the partial first met, and plaintiff suggested to
delendant-that it would be advisable to establish an hotel
at Boologee for the benefit of the excursionist, who want to
that place. Defendant tarnished the plane, but upon an
express understanding that nothing was to be charged for
them, and that both plaintiff and defendant were to be paid
for their trouble out of the promotion money.
Plaintiff was called and stated that his claim wee for
private services rendered to the defendant.
Cross-examined—The Boulogne hotel scheme was first
suggested to me by Sir John Hare, who is a resident of
Boulogne, and who fancied an hotel there would answer.
Sir John was not a promoter, but he guaranteed 100/. to-
wards the preliminary expenses.
Mr. James asked plaintiff where the plans were at this
time ?

Plaintiff —I have retained them, as I have a lien upon
them for my costs. They were not supplied to me as attor-
ney for the defendant, but as attorney for the proposed
company. Is defendant owed me money privately, I, as
an attorney, consider that I am entitled to detain the plans.
His lordship considered that he had no such right.
Plaintiff's brother deposed that ho heard defendant say
he should not charge plaintiff for the plans.
Cross-examined—l have been in the royal navy, sod
used to go down to my brother's office as a pleasant change.
1 weed to write my letters and article, for magazines there.
!surveyed the prospectus of the Boulogne scheme, in which
I took some interest. "Captain Royal, R.N." would have
looked well amongst the list of the directors, but I do not
think that I was to be a director. I might have accepted
the post of secretary, if it had been a pleasant billet.
(Laughter.)
Mr. James, for the defendant, urged that the defendant
was clearly entitled to the benefit of his plans, and as
plaintiff could at any time come upon Sir John Hare for
the 1001., no loos would accrue to him from paying defen-
dant for his work.

Defendant was called, and stated that plaintiff called
upon him iu reference to the Boulogne Hotel Company,
saying he was the promoter, and a client of his had some
land in Boulogne, which be would give. He asked witness
to prepare the plans to be submitted to the board, and to
be engraved upon the front of the prospectus. Witness
made various drawings and plans, which were delivered to
the plaintiff. Nothing was ever said about witness not
being paid for the work.
(*mem:mined—l believe that I was advertised as arcbi•
tact to the proposed company. I do not generally work
upon the terms set out by the plaintiff, *colas there is a
special agreement in writing. No such conversation as that
sworn to by the plaintiff's brother took place.
Mr. James produced a letter from plaintiff in which Mr.
Royal mid that he had not been paid for the plans, and that
" if he had received any money for them, he would have
handed it over."

The learned counsel having severally addressed the jury,
His lordship summed up, and observed that he did not
believe there was any legal definition of the word " pro-
moter" except that to be found in an act of parliament
passed last year, and that more especially referred to the
person whose name appeared to the bill brought before
parliament. Here the company had not come to a bill. and
it would be for the jury to judge how far the plainliff was
a promoter of this company. It was not very usual for an
attorney to make himself liable for the debts of a company,
but in the present instance it was set up that he was both
solicitor and promoter. The question for the jury was,
whether plaintiff did mate himself personally liable an this
matter.

The jury, after a brief deliberation, asked if the pestle'
would agree to swept a verdict of eleven.
Defendant agreed, but plaintiff declined, and after •
second oonsultation they found • verdict for the plaintiff.