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

TEE' SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 14, 1863.

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 ho 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. He 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-
leged engagements were entered into.

Mr. Prentice said, from the first, the plaintiffs were aware
that in a position to make engage-
ments, Holta was
dths noteref imorhethsealtf 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 principal, 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
the
elet
ginretehmeecnot • en h
concern. The. alleged engagements were before
imand 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 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 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, it
they had been given, was only a proof of fraud, for it would
be a flat contradiction of the agreement. Theadvertisemeni
of the "contract" entered into for the purchase of the papeti
(which was denied by the defendant and his witness) veaS
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 que‘tion was, what had been the real agreement be-
tween the defendant and Holt, and the of ject had been to
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, and pointed out that they had the
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 dis-
tinct retainer for a session, at all events, in Courtney'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 deferdant was real, then (apart from his
"holding himself out") the defendant would not be liable.
Its avowed object was to protect him from liability beyond
the £l,ooo—in fact, to limit his liability. This was a per-
fectly legitimate object, and one which he might lawfully
and fairly endeavour to effect. And certainly it was effected
by this agreement, assumingit 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 all doubt there was nothing
at all improbable in the agreement. On the
there was
it
A
seemed very probable and reasonable. Was the
positive oath of the defendant and Holt that
it was the real
agreement between
then] • and it would be a strong thing to
disbelieve them, as the jury were asked to do, on account of
various circumstances which they must consider. The
various acts of interference relied on by the plaintiffs were
defendants and they had heard his
planned by by the the fact that Holt received a
tion. There was certainlyat well be that the defendant and he had
agreed but it wig-- -
have so much a week as editor. Such,
however, that he should
Now, such were the main
however, was the fact.features in
had to consider, which
and was
the case which the
jury
YThegreat question was, pecu-
as, whether the
liarly one for them.
genuine' and whether the defendant was
agreement was
or a part proprietor. It was suggested that
the • a proprietor
to promote the defendant's co
the paper was a contrivance ra-
same other company to carryon the paper.
panics or to get up
As to the first suPP°el .
tseem
tion it did not to show that the
r • and
agreement was less likely to be real , as to the other, the
u 3
_Psay appeare to have been started only as
newspaper co
the paper had failed. There
a last resource when was one
other topic to be
asidered. There was a
CO
t deny the truth rule of law under
which a man could no of his own represen-
tation if others had acted uon it,aPll and thus, if the defendant
or
had held himself out.
owed any one to hold himself
proprietor, and the plaintiffs had trusted to that
in
he could not be
in •
their contracts,
wouldheld to dispute it. Upon
question
that, however, the be twofold—had he so
held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as
before the plaint' owner,
and had he done
.sifos, die were engaged. As
own evid
to this the plaint'
heard of the once
was
that they were en-
gaged before they defendant, before the agree-
the paper
agree-
ment, and before started, and before Parliament
r of them
opened, and neither had seen the defendant until
HQ could not see himself
.afterwards.how, on this ground,
could be sup
Ithe plaintiffs'
case
the real trutted. A man was not liable
'otherwise than as of the case, unless he had
acting on
misled others into the faith of a different state of
facts. As to
wIl
andPpened after the alleged engage-
ments, it was different,at had had
there were, certainly, several
matters which ha occurred, and which were likely to lead
plaintiffs the pla to conceive that the defend
ant was the pro-
elusion, the
prietor. In
conclusion,
• was reallylearned a proprietor, of part pro-
prietor ;
whether the
proprietor
and defendant held himself out as pro-
prietor or part before or at the time of the alleged
engagements.
ngage
d all the
found questions
The juryin favour of the defend-
that they found that
ant, except
owner after the
out as ownfound engagements.
having to
The jull,
the the three first questions in favour
defendant, and
,of the fourth question in favour of the
plaintiffs, were then asked whether Holt had represented
before the agreement that there was any • •
whethar he had principal behind
him, also done so afterwards •
answered in the ne • , the former
they an-negative, the latter in the affirmative.
They
They also found that a weekly engagement had
' both plaintiffs. been made
with
It
The res was a verdict for the defendant, with leave for
the plaintiff's
in to move on the questions answered in their
favour.
It was agreed that there was to be no appeal.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, AUG. 13.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
gary 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 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-
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 sho met the prisoner said to her " Oh,
-Mary, what have you done ?" to which the prisoner an•
swered " 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. Herapath, 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
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 from the bed,
one of which presented the
appearance of the mark of a
child's head, with some hair adhering to the floor. On a
post mortem examination considerable fractures of the bones