The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-09 00:00:00

SAME V. BROWNRIGO AND TAYLOR.

This, like the lait Ise, was an action for calls. The
defendants pleaded that they were never indebted. It
appeared that in this instance the defendants and one
Gordon had a joint interest in 20 shares in this railway
company. Gordon lives in Scotland, and consequently
is without the jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. Welsby and Mr. Townsend conducted the case of
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Boavan that of the defendants.
On behalt of the plaintiffs the register of shareholders
of the company was put in, in which appeared the names
of Brewnrigg, Gordon, and Taylor, as holders of twenty
shares. The minute-book of the company was next pro-
duced. It contained a resolution bearing date December
28th, 1846, and making the first call payable January
25th, 1847. The shares had been accepted by the de-
fendant on the sth of August, 1846. The like proof was
given of a second call, on the 26th of April, 1847, and of
a third call on the 16th of June, 1847. Letters to the
defendant Brownrigg were put in, notifying the fact of
the making of the several calls, which letters, under the
" Companies Clauses Consolidation Act," are evidence
of the calls, and sufficient to fix with liability the
other defendant, having a joint interest, though similar
letters were not addressed to him. It appeared from
these letters that the third call had been made within
three months of the making of the second, contrary to
the express directions of the statute above referred to,
so the plaintiffs were compelled to abandon their demand
as regards the third call. They, however, duly proved
a fourth and a fifth call. There was also a question
raised whether the letter making the second call was
posted 21 clear days before the call was payable? The
Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs intimated that they
would abandon the second call, as they could not prove
the posting of the letter, making it according to the re-
quirements of the statute.

- The Learned thrniEairected the jury to find a ver-
dict for the defendant, with liberty to move to enter the
verdict for the plaintiff on the first and fourth and fifth
calls, or for such part thereof as the judge ought to have
directed the jury to find for him.

POLICE IN 'TELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL. _

Two men, named kchard Hayes and Robert Nixon,
were placed at the bar for the fourth time, under the
following circumstances:—
Mr. George Flintoff, of 153, Fleet-street, bookseller,
I said that on Thursday, the 19th July, he missed some
books from his shop window, and had hand bills printed
and circulated, in consequence of which a Mr. Bumpas,
of Oxford-street, sent word to say that he had purchased
one of them, " Gibbon's Rome." at the same time giving
a description of the party. Witness, after some trouble,
succeeded in tracing Hayes to the White Horse public-
house, in Poland-street, where he; charged him with
stealing the book, which he denied, saying that he
bought it of a man with whom ha had dealt for two years,
in a public-house. That man proved to be the prisoner I
Nixon.

Several witnesses were in attendance who had pur-
chased books of the prisoners, and Mr. Spokes, a book-
seller in Holborn, and Mr. Flintoff, identified the books
so sold as having been stolen from them.

A rather amusing scene arose on a question being
put to the persons baying whether they ought not to
have had some suspicion when the books were offered
for sale that they could not have been come by honestly,
the losers of the property contending that Hayes was
no buyer at sales, and therefore they should have been
wide awake on the subject, while the purchasers with
equal warmth said that they had known him for years
in the trade, and had seen him purchase books, and from
that fact they had no suspicion. Hereupon Mr. Flintoff
and Mr. Spokes retorted that certainly he had now and
then bought a shilling book, but he did not belong to
" the family." Upon which the Court, much to the
amusement of the persons present, were a little enlight-
ened upon the subject of book auctions or "knock ins,"
as they are technically termed, from which it would ap-
pear that the booksellers were known by the name of " the
family," while such as Hayes, and persons like him, were
called "lambs." When a gentleman's library was to be dis-
posed of, an understanding was come to between " the
family" and " the lambs," that the latter, for a con.
sideration, should abstain from attending to bid while
the family attended the auction, and perhaps one or two
of them would bid for the whole lot, which, when
knocked down, were afterwards conveyed to a public-
house near at hand, and a distribution took place
amongst. them by sale, which was called the profit and
loss," '
or " knock ins," inasmuch as each party suited
himself with respect to what books he wanted'' at this
ion amongst themselves; the ove
divided amongst them, and a eertairnPsitiu
thought b
would sometimes purch3maosrge
for a shilling orefaom
each "lamb," wh
Hayes, in defence, still persisted .
ivpaer
nof.efitwtos
books, that "th
entheaatthhteheplurrenhoatisceed,
the " History of Rome "and the " Pickwick Papers',
two.
strenuously denied everything
from Nixon, while
hue: on its being shown that he was
a provedwell-known
against t
thief,
him;
andb had been transported, he con-
fessed that he had been a bad character, but was now an
honestman
Alderman CARDEN, after taking at great deal of pains
with the case, ultimately sentenced theal
imprisonment each,
receiver.Treceiver.- --
Nixon as the thief anyes as the
tod !its? months'