The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 14, 1863.

Mr. Prentice pointed out that the word was in the plural
mtrueMTnehtseilneetrnheedca
Judgeplaintiffs,evidence
particulartheoneofHoltmustproprietor,
careful
thethejury
aboutit.betheundoubtedfacts
observed that he supposed one ques-
tion would be whether the alleged agreement between Holt
and the defendant was real or only colourable.ls
Mr.
had
tha t
heldh he
Should i,nassi s t
thethat,
defendantev e ni
himself out as proprietor, or
He
should f
it were real, it constituted a partnership a
was to be paid out of the profits, also submit
that
the defendant
allowed Holt to join him as such.
The learned Judge observed that thi •
s was after the al-
leged engagements were entered into.
Mr. Prentice said, from the first, the plaintiffs were aware
a
that Holt was not himself in
position to make engage-
ments, and therefore that he must have been acting for
some one,
The learned Judge said he did not see how that would
affect the question if the plaintiffs had made their contract
without knowing of the alleged , petneieal
p and before he
had held himself out or allowed Holt to hold him out as
the principal, even assuming that he had ever done so.
However, this was merely for the purpose of seeing how the
case might possibly be shaped.
Mr. Hawkins then argued to the jury that, upon the
evidence, it was quite impossible that the plaintiffs could
have entered into these contracts on the faith of the defen-
dant being principal or partner, for they did not know of
him, nor knew as a fact that there was any one else than
Holt in the concern. The alleged engagements were before
the agreement between him and the defendant, and before
the defendant had anything to do with the matter. Nor
could untrue statements by Holt, even had any such been
made, affect the defendant, unless they were made with
his sanction, and also before the alleged engagements. The
learned counsel drew a humorous picture of the position of
the paper in its last days, the printer daily pressing Holt for
money, and Holt pressing the defendant ; and thus the de-
fendant led on day by day to make further advances. The
Iron Times, he said, had not a very iron constitution, and
the joint stock company had been suggested at the last
moment as the only chance of supporting its existence. It
was then that, as a mere afterthought, it had been endea-
voured to fix the defendant.
Mr. Prentice addressed the jury in reply on the part of
the plaintiff. He said it was quite ludicrous. to see how in
these days joint-stock companies were " got up," and the
case of the Iron Times was an instance of a scheme between
a man with money and a man without it, by which in the
event of success the moneyed man should realize a large
fortune, and if it failed should lose as little as possible. The
whole of the pretended agreement between Holt and the de-
fendant was a sham. It was expressly stipulated that Holt
should not be personally responsible, and yet it was pre-
tended that he had given bills of security—bills, by-the-by,
which had not been produced, and the giving of which, if
they had been given, was only a proof of fraud, for it would
be a flat contradiction of the agreement, Theadvertisement
of the " contract" entered into fcr the purchase of the paper
(which was denied by the defendant and his witness) was
another evidence of fraud, and was obviously a mere device
to gull the public, by a statement now admitted to have
been utterly untrue. If the company had succeeded, as so
many delusive schemes had succeeded, the result would
have been a sale of this paper for a large sum, the greater
portion of which the defendant would have received. The
main question was, what had been the real agreement be-
tween the defendant and Holt, and the re ject had been to
I enable defendant to evade all pecuniary risk or liability in
the enterprise in which he was really engaged.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the jury,
first remarked on the point of damage, supposing the plain-
tiffs entitled to recover andpointed out that they had the
, p
benefit of their time ; but that if they could not employ it
profitably, they might be entitled to their full salary_
otherwise, not so. Then, as to the duration of the contract
(supposing the defendant liable at all), there was not dise
tinct retainer for a session, at all events, in Caurtney's case.
But both the plaintiffs relied on an alleged custom, rest-
ing on what certainly seemed reasonable—that the en-
gagements of Parliamentary reporters should be sessional.
Certainly, if that were so, it would go to confirm the case
for the plaintiffs, but it must be considered whether it was
probable that such a custom would be applied in the case of
a paper just started, and there was the direct evidence of
Holt that it was not so in these cases. Then as to the main
question, whether the defendant was liable at all. He was
of opinion, in point of law that if the agreement between
,
Holt and the defer dant was real, then (apart from his
"holding himself out") the defendant would not be table.
Its avowed object was to protect him from liability beyond
the 4000---in fact, to limit his liability. This was aper-
tectly legitimate object, and one which he might lawfully
and fairly endeavour to effect. And certainly it was effected
by this agreement, assuming it to be real. The case for the
plaintiffs was, that it was not real, but colourable, and that
the defendant was real owner, either as partner or as prin
cipal and employer. It would be for the jury to say whe-
ther it was so or not. Beyond alt doubt there was nothing
at all improbable in the agreement.
On
Antdhtehere
wraarsaatkiet
t
seemed very probable and reasonable.
'
positive oath of the defendant and Holt that it was the real
agreement between them ; and it would be a strong thing to
ijury were asked to do, on account of
disbelieve them, as ts-ee they must consider. The
various cireumstase,es which . .
interference relied on by the plaintiffs were
various acts of
and they had heard his explana-
planned by the defendant,certainly
the fact that Holt received a
tion. There was k
well e that the defendant and he bad
salary, but it might
much a week
as editor. Such,
agreed that he should have so
however, was the fact. Now, such were the main features in
the case which the jury bad to consider, and which was pecu-
liarly he
great question was, whether the
T one for them. .
and whether the defendant was
agreement was genume,t
proprietor. It was suggested that
really a proprietor or a par
the paper was a contrivance to promote the defendant's cone-
or to get up some other ccmpa tny 0 carryon the paper.
ponies
to not seem
Aa to the first supposition, it did nshow that the
agreement was
less likely to be real , and as to the other, the
appearede been started only as
newspaper company
0 paper had failed. T
a last resource when th here was one
ed.
other topic to be considerdenY There was a rule of law under
not the truth of his
which a man could own represen-
tation if others had ac ted upon it, and thus,
110 d if the defendant
had held himself out. or a we any one to hold himself
and the plaintiffs had
out, as the proprietor, trusted to that
not
he could be held to
in their contracts,dispute it. Upon
that, however, the question would be twofold—had he so
held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as owner,
the
and had he done so beforeplaintiffs were engaged. As
to this the plaintiffs'
"evidence was that they were en-
gaged before they heard ri
of the defendant, before the agree-'
ment, and before the paper started, and before Parliament
them
opened, and neither of had seen the defendant until
afterwards. He could not seehimself how, on this
• ' case CO A man w ground,
the plaintiff ld be supported,s as not liable
otherwise than as the real truth of the case, unless he had
misled others into acting on the faith of a different state of
facts. As to what had happened after the alleged engage-
ments, it was different, and there were, certainly,Y, several
matters which had occurred, and Which •
ceive that the were likely to lead
the plaintiffs to con defendant was
the the pro-
prietor. In conclusion, learned Judge left it to the jury
whether the defendant was really a proprietor, or part pro-
prietor ; and whether the defendant held himself out as
pro-
prietor or part proprietor before or at the time of the alleged
engagements.
The jury found all the questions in favour of the defend-
ant, except that they found that the defendant held •
himself
out as owner after the engagements.
having found
The jury, the three first questions in favour
of the defendant, and the fourth question i
were then asked in favour of the
plaintiffs, w whether Halt had represented
the agreement that beforethere was any principal behind
him, also whether he had done so afterwards •
,the former
they answered in the negative, the latter •in the affirmative.
They also found that a weekly ye'
with both plaintiffs. engagement had been made
The result was a verdict for the defendant
the plaintiffs to move on t h , with leave for
e questions
answered in their
favour.
It was agreed that there was to be no appeal.

OXFORD
(CBleßfoCrelTMlTrifiociercßEySiTeEs.R), AU G . 13.
CuoviN COURT.
Mary Ann Golding was indicted for the murder of her
infant child, at Stapleton, on the 16th July,
Mr. Sawyer was for the prosecution; Mr, Weightman
Was for the prisoner.
The prisoner was in service as a housemaid at Stapleton.
and on the 16th, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, her kb:
low-servant went upstairs and found her in their bedroom.
When she entered the room the prisoner left it, and she
then observed marks of blood on the floor, and, looking un-
der the bed, saw a new-born child in the utensil in a crum-
pled-up state. She saw it move and gape. She at once left
the room, and when she met the prisoner said to her " Oh,
Mary, what have you done ?" to which the prisoner an.
awered " Pray don't tell mistress ;" but she found her mis.
tress, told her, and returned with her to the room. The
child was taken out of the utensil ; restoratives were applied
but it was found to be quite dead. It was then rolled up
in some linen and left on the floor. The prisoner was ordered
by her mistress to leave that night. Mr. Ilerapath, a sur-
geon at Bristol, was sent for the same night, and arrived at
the house where the prisoner lived at about 10 o'clock. He
examined her, and found that she had been recently de-
livered. He asked to see the child, and the prisoner then
Pointed to a box, locked and corded, which the prisoner had
fractured,
from
andthe
bed,M r
Herapa
n got ready for her departure, and in it the body of the child
was foutnh observed twod.ltshead spots
s extensively f
about
three
e of which presented the appearance of the mark of a
child'so head, with some hair adhering to the floor. On a
r feetac d,
post mortem examination considerable fractures of the bones