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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 14, 1363.

Mr. Prentice pointed out that the word was in the plural
-" proprietors,"

The learned Judge observed he did not think there was
much in that. It was rather a small point in the case.
Mr. Alpass was then recalled by Mr. Prentice, in reply
on the part of the plaintiffs, to contradict the evidence of
the last witness. He said he could not state that on any
particular occasion the last witness had precisely stated
that the defendant was proprietor.

. -
Mr. Lilley, one of the plaintiffs' witnesses, was recalled,
and swore that Holt said to him that the defendant was pro-
prietor, and that he must be careful what he said about it.
Mr. Hawkins, in addressing the jury on the evidence for
the defence, said this last piece of evidence could not be
true, for it was opposed to the undoubted facts and docu-
ments in the case.

The learned Judge observed that he supposed one ques-
tion would be whether the alleged agreement between Holt
and the defendant was real or only colourable.
Mr. Prentice said that he should also insist that, even if
it were real, it constituted a partnership, as the defendant
was to be paid out of the profits. lie should also submit
that the defendant had held himself out as proprietor, or
allowed Holt to join him as such.

The learned Judge observed that this was after the al-
[egad engagements were entered into.

Mr. Prentice said, from the first, the plaintiffs were aware
that Holt was not himself in a position to make engage-
ments, and therefore that he must have been acting for

some one.

The learned Judge said he didneol mtseede theirehowthactowntorualcdt
hu
affectwiwithout
o thet
knowing of h
question i f thete
plaintiffs h
allegedprincipal, 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 ROA. 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 bolt for
taoney, 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
raument 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 limes 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 failec 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 for 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 object had been to
fie nrsatb
remarked
eemdeafrekneddanont evadettohe
pointaolli pdpecuniaryliability
upripsoksionrg in
the enterprise in which he was really engaged.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case to
tthheepjluairhy:
tiffs entitled to recover, and pointed out that they had the
bperenfiefitethloyf,ththeeirytimmie ; but that if they could not employ it
wise, not so. gThhtenb,easeutotitthleed
(supposing the defendant liable at all), there was not dis-
tinct duration their 0 full.f the salary—
otherceh
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
kr 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
Holt and the defendant was real, then (apart from his
ectly legitimate object, and on© agreement between
"holding himself out") the defendant would not be liable.
Its avowed object was to protect him from llity beyona
the £l,ooo—in fact, to lit his liability. This was a per-
and fairly ( ndeavour to effect. And certainly it was effected
by this agreement, assuming it to be real. The case for the
which he might lawfully
plaintiffs was, that it was not real, Mt 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 all doubt there was nothing
at all improbable in the agreement. On the contrary, it
seemed ver robable and reasonable. And
positive oath of the defendant and Holt that it was the real
agreement between them ; and it would be a strong thing to
y p there was the
disbelieve them, as the jury were asked to do, on account of
various circumstances which they must consider. The
interference relied an by the plaintiffs were
various acts of d
nt and they had heard his explana-
tion.planned by the defendant,
There was
consider, uc h w the r. e
andthewmhai ienh featuresw ap e c hhi n.
salary, but it might we had
certainly
ott
hhmae
tuft: fact that
dtwehfeaeethkd Holtah defendant
d ei
htr received eh i
esv eude a,
agreed that he should have s
however, was the fact.
vrtol)
promote the detendbanares com.
The great question was, whether the
litany one for them• .
the case which the jury
, and whether the defendant
agreement was genumaert
proprietor. It was sug re t d Was
that
really a proprietor or a
paper had tailed. There was one
get some other company to carry on the paper.
psnies or to up
it dia not seem to h
As to the first supposition,
be . 6ow that the
08
likely to real , and as to the other, the
agreement was 1 “
.., appeared to have been started
newspaper compan.y only as
the paper was a contrivancehi)Nado_
considered. There was a rule of l
other topic to be co . aw under
could not deny the truth of his
which a man own represen-
eted upon it, and th •
tation if others had a •
allowed' us, if the defendant
had held himself out• or any one to hold himself
proprietor, and the plaintiffs had trusted to that
in their contracts, he coul held to dispute it. Upon
the question would be twofold—had he so
that, however,
held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as owner,
and had he done so before theplaintiffs were engaged. As
to this the plaintiffs' own evidence was that they were en-
gaged before they heard of, the defendant, before the agree-
ment, and before the patpterm started, and before Parliament
opened, and neither of
had seen the defendant until
afterwards. He could not see imself how, on this ground,
• coule supported. A
the plaintiffs case d b
man was 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 h
facts. As to what had aßened after the alleged engage-
ments, it was different, and there were, certainly, several
likely
matters which had occurred, and which were • ely to lead
conceive that
the plaintiffs to the defend ant was the pro-
prietor. In conclusion, the learned Judge left it to he jury
whether the defendant was really a proprietor, of part
pro-
prietor ; and whether the defendant held himself out as 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,
The jury, having found the three first questions in favour
of the defendant, and the fourth question in favour of the
plaintiffs,
were then asked whether HAt had re
presented
before the agreement that there was any principal behind
him, also whether he had done so afterwards; the former
they answered in the negative, the latter in the affirmative.
also found that a w
1 hey weekly engagement had been made
with both plaintiffs.
The result was a verdict for the defendant, with leave for
the plaintiffs to move on the questions answered in their
favour
wa.
It d that there s agreed was to be no appeal.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, AUG. 13.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
_ _

nary An Glidapinleton, on the 16th July
Golding was indicted for the murder of her
infanta was for
at
Sawyer was for tho prosec ' '
l
utron ; Mr, Weightman
The prisoner was in service as a housemaid at Stapleton,
wifec S chile
prisoner.
and on the 16th, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, her fel:
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-
sst o;,, wbhuitchshethfeounprdisohneerrmains ..
un-
der the bed, saw a new-born child in the utensil in a crum-
pled-upstate. She saw it move and gape. She at once left
the room, and when she met the prisoner said to her 4, oh,
swere
tress, told her, and returned with her to the room. The
child was taken out of the utensil ; restoratives were applied
blare,
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. Hera nth a sur-
w"hPartallyadvoentouteldl omniestr'e'
geon at Bristol, was sent for the same night, and arrived at
the house where the prisoner livede
at
had about
been recently de-
-10 o'clock. He
examined her, and found that eh
ea
He asked to see the child, and the prisoner then
pointed to a box, locked and corded, which the prisoner had
got ready for her departure, and in it the body of the child
was found. Its head was extensively fractured, and Mr.
Herapath observed two spots about three feet
the mark from the beda
one of which presented the appearance of of
child's head, with some hair adhering to the floor. On a
post mortem examination considerable fractures of the bones