The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-11 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. -WATSON.

This case was tried in this Court during the last term,
before the Lord Chief Justice. The defendant was in-
dicted for indecently assaulting a child, and for indecently
exposing his person in a public place, the public place
being Paddington Churchyard. He was found guilty of
the indecent exposure. The case was fully reported in
The Sun at the time.
Sir F. THESIGER now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant
or in arrest of judgment. There were three counts, but
the verdict of guilty, he understood, was only taken in
the first, which stated that the defendant, in an open
and public place
Lord DEN MAN-4 understand the defendant is not
in Court.

Sir F. THESIGER—IIe is under recognizances, my
Lord. lam merely applying for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant.
If your Lordship thinks it would bo more convenient to
make my motion when the defendant comes up for judg-
ment, I will defer it until then.
LORD DENMAN said that was the invariable rule.
The matter then dropred.
SIMS AND WIFE V. HENDERSON.

This case was tried before Lord Denman at the last
sittings after term, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiffs for upwards of 10,000/.
Mr. MARSTON now applied to have the verdict set
aside, and, with the leave of the Learned Judge, to enter
a nonsuit, and also to have the judgment arrested.
The case arose out of certain proceedings in the Su-
preme Court of Newfoundland, which, it was contended,
had exceeded its powers.
The COURT took time to consider the various objec-
tions raised.

COKE V. SIR TONKIN.
This was tried before the Under-Sherriff in July last,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed. It was an action brought by the
plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the Oxford Chronicle,
against the defendant, as one of the members of the
provisional committee of the Oxford and High Wycombe
Junction Railway, to recover the amount of a bill in-
curred by advertising the prospectus of the company in
his newspaper.
A rule was subsequently obtained in the Bail Court
by Mr. Finn, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside on two grounds—
first, that the advertisements must be taken on the credit
of the solicitor of the company and not upon his prin-
cipals, and secondly, that if they could not be taken
upon his credit, that his principals were the managing
committee, and not the provisional committee; and that
the defendant was not a member of the managing com-
mittee, but of the provisional committee. The case now
came on for argument.
Mr. MAYNARD, who appeared for the plaintiff, admitted
that if any evidence had been adduced at the trial that the
committee had paid the solicitor for the advertise-
ments, or that the solicitor had charged the committee
for them, or that the defendant, or any other member
of the committee, were liable to the solicitor, and that the
plaintiffs must consequently look to the solicitor, and
not to the committee, the objection would have pos-
sessed some force; but it was wholly untenable, and was
raised at the last moment, when the plaintiffs attempted
to prove the liability of the provisional committee,
and, therefore, that the attorney was merely their
agent, and could not be held liable. He quoted
a number of authorities in support of this view. There
was evidence that the defendant gave his
verbal consent to the placing of his name on the
committee, that he attended its meetings, and that the
newspapers containing the prospectus were at these
times lying on the table of the committee-room. The
case was properly left to the jury by the Under-Sheriff.
Mr. FINN contended, on the other hand, that there was
no evidence adduced to show that the solicitor had re-
ceived orders from the committee. Such orders were
not usually given by a solicitor, but by the secretary,
who acted under the directions of his Committee. He
had no authority to act in the way he did. Were
they, then, to be held liable for his acts? The
raifht eor t tohke
pappointment
vesoftheasolme
work was done after the 30th of November, and
amn aagn iangge m ce
no mt mo
fi t ttehee,
affairs of the company. A provisional committeeman
was simply a patron of a scheme, and not a person who
took an active part in the management of its affairs.
Although it was shown that the defendant did take his
part in the management of the affairs of the company in
its early stages, nothing of the kind was shown at the
advanced period, when the debt was incurred.
Lord DENMAN said, it appeared that the plaintiff had
notice that there was a managing committee, as the
names of such a committee appeared on the face of the
prospectus sent to him to print; they were struck out in
order to save expense, perhaps.
The COURT took time to consider the application, as
it was possible they might be called upon to pronounce
an opinion upon others of a similar nature daring the
term.
The Court then rose.

BAIL CO Ulti.—(THIS DAY)
Mr. Justice Erle took his seat in this Court this morn-
mg, at half-past nine o'clock.
The business transacted was of no public importance.

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

BEILBY V. SHEPHERD.

In this cause, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron at the sittings after last Michaelmas term, a ver-
dict was returned fur the defendant, with liberty to move
to enter the verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of 501.
The defendant was the master of a vessel named the
Nisus, and was sailing from Ostend to Gainsborough.
The plaintiff was a pilot licensed by the Trinity House
at Hull, and he had offered to pilot the vessel in ves-
tion, which the master, in violation of the ,General Na-
vigation Act of the 6th of Geo. IV., chap. 125, had re-
fused, thereby rendering himself liable to the amount of the
penalty named in the Act, to recover which the present
action was brought. The point reserved at the trial
was, whether the defendant was liable under the 70th
section of the Act, which imposed a penalty of 50/., or
under the 58th section, which fixed the penalty at a few
shillings? The Learned Baron who tried the cause vies
of opinion that the master of th© vessel was not liable
under the 70th section of the Act.

Mr. MARTIN now contended that tho defendant was
liable under both sections of the Act.—Judgment post-
poned.

VOLLANS V. FLETCHER.
In this cause Mr. MARTIN moved for a rule calling
plaintiff for thefit.
upon the defendant to show cause why the nonsuit
should. not be set aside and a verdict entered for the
suTmheofae2tliol.e, owressuchhreseugmhtas
tethereCeeovuerrt
might
tiff
from the defendant, a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the Birmingham and Walsall Junction Railway,
the sum of 211. paid by •
plaintiff as his deposit upon 20
shares in this company which had been allotted to him.
Upon the trial the Lord Chief Baron was of opinion that
the agreement to allot the shares should have been
stamped, and the point was reserved for the considers-
tio' of the Court, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, leave
being given to move to enter the verdict according to the
terms of the present motion. The Learned Gentleman
now contended that this case was precisely similar to
that of " Walstab v. Spottiswoode," and acting upon the
decision in that case, he apprehended that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover back the money he had paid, the
defendant not having applied it for the purposes for
which it was intended when paid by the piaintiff. He
was willing, however, to take a verdict for the sum
sought to be recovered, reduced by the sum of 2s. per
share, allowed by the Joint Stock Companies Act to be
retained on behalf of preliminary expenses.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that the difference be-
tween the present case and that of " Walstab v. Spottis-
woode" was this—in the latter case the plaintiff paid the
money upon an agreement that scrip was to be received
upon the payment
of the deposit, and upon signing the
deed, but there was no scrip issued by the company,.
neither was there any deed prepared for the signature of
the plaintiff, who was therefore fully entitled to recover
back the amount of the deposit made upon the faith of
such an agreement. In the present case the scrip was
ready for delivery, but the plaintiff refused to accept it,
and also neglected to sign the deed which had beente
it pre-
pared by the defendant. It was this that constituted
the
difference between the two cases, and was this differ-
ence which led him to direct a nonsuit for the
.plaintiff
as well as the point raised upon the necessity of stamp-
ing the agreement.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)

DAVIS V. LOWNES.

The only matter that came before the Court this morn-
ing was an application made by Mr. Sergeant Manning,
to change the attorney to the defendant in this case,
which was tried at bar the last sitting after term. The
application was granted.
The Court immediately after rose.