The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-25 00:00:00

THE DIRECTORS OF THE STANHOPE AND TYNE RAILWAY

V. DARFORD AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the Directors of the
Stanhope and Tyne Railway Company against the de-
fendants, for a breach of contract. After hearing evidence
at great length,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and left it to
the Jury simply to decide between the conflicting state-
ments of the witnesses as to the construction of the terms
of the Contract. If they should be of opinion that the
defendants, by persisting in their intention of using cinder
in the manufacture of the rails, which they contracted to
furnish, had refused to comply with the terms of the con-
tract, they must find their verdict fot the plaintiffs ; but if,
on the other hand, they should be convinced that the
" best iron" might be composed of a portion of cinder; and
that, consequently, the defendants were only prevented
from fulfilling their engagement by the conduct of the
plaintiffs themselves, the defendants would be entitled to
a verdict at their hands.

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

SHERIFF'S CO UR T—TUESDA r.
(Before Mr. BuRcHELL.)
cLakaicE AND ANOTHER V. - BAKER, ESQ.

LIABILITY OF PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.--This was an
action brought to recover the sum of 891. 3s. for advertise-
ments inserted in the London and country newspapers, at
the instance of the plaintiffs, by order of the defendant.
Mr. OGLE (Counsel for plaintiffs) said this was an ac-
tion, brought by Messrs. Clarke and Lewis, advertisement
agents, residing in the city, against the defendant, Mr.
Baker, a most respectable Parliamentary agent, to recover
the amount of a bill delivered for advertisements inserted in
the public newspapers, relating to the Dublin and Drogheda
Railway, by order of the defendant. The defendant had
suffered judgment to go by default, thereby acknowledging
that he was responsible to some extent, and consequently it
was for the Jury to decide what damages the plaintiffs were
entitled to. The facts of the case might be shortly stated.
In May, 183 G, the defendant was engaged, in his profes-
sional capacity, to take the necessary measures for carry-
ing a Bill to constitute a railroad between Dublin and
Drogheda through Parliament. In the execution of that
duty he gave written and verbal orders to the plaintiffs to
insert the necessary advertisements in the public newspa-
pers, which orders were complied with.
Several witnesses were called, who proved that the plain-
tiffs caused the advertisements to be inserted in conse-
quence of the orders of the defendant, and that tie
charges were fair and reasonable.
Mr. CHADWICKE JONES said that he had the honour to
appear for the defendant (Mr. Baker), who was a highly
respectable parliamentary agent, and if the jury returned a
verdict against him on the evidence adduced, it would
have the effect of making parliamentary agents exceedingly
careful how they undertook to carry bills through Parlia-
ment. The defendant was not certain that the proprietors
of every newspaper in which the advertisem'nts had ap-
peared might not bring similar actions, for there was no
proof that they looked to the plaintiffs solely for payment.
Why did not Messrs. Clarke end Lewis proceed against
Mr. Eyton, the Secretary of the Company, or the Direc-
tors, and then their claim would, in all probability, have
been long ago satisfied ? If his (Mr. Jones's) client ad-
mitted he was liable for 101., it was no reason why the
jury should say he was bound to pay the whole amount
claimed by the plaintiffs, and he could- not anticipate such
a result.

Mr. BURCHELL—Do you call any witnesses?

Mr. JONES—No, sir.

The UNDER-SHERIFF, in summing up, said the ques-
tions for the Jury to decide were, whether the advertise-
'ments had been inserted in the different newspapers, in con-
sequence of orders from the defendant ? and, secondly,
whether they were satisfied the charges were fair and rea-
sonable ? On the first point it was clearly proved the de-
fendant gave either written or verbal orders for the inser-
tion of the advertisements. The Learned Counsel for the
defence said there was no reason why the proprietors of
every newspaper in which the advertisements appeared
should not bring separate actions against the Directors of
the Company. Now, the answer to any such actions
would be plain and obvious. We know nothing about the
matter : we employed Mr. Baker, and it is to that gentle-'
man you must look for payment. The Learned Counsel
for the defendant again said, if )ou find a verdict against
my client it will make Parliamentary agents exceedingly
careful how they undertake to carry Bills through Parlia-
ment. No doubt it would, and so it ought ; for if Parlia-
mentary agents of any description took upon themselves to
give orders for the insertion of advertisements, or incurring
other expenses for the Company, they ought to be hell as
now legally responsible. The only questions for their con-
sideration were, did the defendant give the orders to plain-
tiffs ? It was proved the advertisements had appeared,
and were the charges fair and moderate ?
The Jury (without leaving the box), returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs—Damages, 891. 35., the amount c'aimed.

COURT Or• BANKRUPTCY, Ocr. 24.
COLVIN, AINSLIE, AND COMPANY'S BANKRUPTCY.

A meeting of the creditors of this banking and agenct
firm, whose engagements were extensive, here as well as in
India, was held to-day for the further proof of ►'ehts and tin
declaration of a dividend upon the joint vni sepzlra.e
estates. The debts due here against the firm are estimt-
ted at about 50,000/., but in India there are also large
claims. The dividends already announced on the joint
estate amount to 20 per cent., and a further sum of 7 per
cent. was ordered to-day to ,be pail to the creditors.
Dividends were also declared on the separate estates of the
bankrupts.

CENTRAL CRINIINAL COURT.

NEIV COURT.

George Bailey, a respectable looking man, aged 38, was
indicted for stealing a pier-glass, sundry mahogany chairs,
and other articles, the property of Miss Jane Sickler Tonkin.
Miss Tonkin, a good-looking woman, was born in 1802,
and is the daughter of a naval officer, who died about ten
years ago, when the prisoner was the executor of his will,
and became her trustee. Two freehold houses were left
to her, the yearly rental of which produced 41/., beyond
which she enjoyed part of an annuity during the life of her
mother, who demised about two years ago. She had lived
with the prisoner eight or nine years in a state of cohabita-
tion. He is a conveyancer, and was chiefly in Devon-
shire, but she lived in London with her mother. This in-
timacy had subsisted about a year before she learned that
he was a married man, but she did not break off the
connection, as her mother supposed that they were mar-
ried, the prisoner having imposed upon her a false cer-
tificate. For the last three or four years she had
lived at No. 16, Wellington-terrace, Lambeth, and
the furniture of the house was all her own, the prisoner
having purchased it out of the proceeds arising• from the
sale o her estates. In September, 1836, she had 180/.
in her possession, and she and the prisoner went to France
together on a journey of pleasure. When there he soon
possessed himself of all her money, and then said that most
urgent business required his presence in London. He left
her in Paris, but never returned or wrote to her. When
she arrived last February and went home, she found that
the prisoner had clandestinely removed all her furniture.

Yesterday Piudence Barton, a young female,,
.blind oil
one eye, was indicted for stealing a purpose containing some
silver belonging to James Wintle, a serious looking elderly
man. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, upon which the
chairman observed that there was a long catalogue of crime
just placed before him relating to the prisoner.
The prisoner affected to be surprised, aryl said that she
was not aware that she was so bad as people tried to make
her (looking at the prosecutor).
CHAIRMAN—It appears that you have been twenty-seven
times in custody, chiefly on charges of robbing men.
Prisoner—Oh, Lord, you don't say so ?
The CHAIRMAN said that the sentence of the Cuurt was
that she be transported for the term of ten years.
The prisoner on hearing the sentence went into a fit, in
which state she was carried out of Court by the gaolers.