The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-08 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY,

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
BURNSIDE V. DAYRELL.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron
during the sittings in London after last term, when
the verdict passed for the plaintiff; with 421. damages.
Mr. CROWDEE, pursuant to leave reserved to the
defendant at the trial, now moved for a rule calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a nonsuit entered. The defendant
was sued as chairman of the provisional committee
of the projected Direct Manchester, Leeds, and
York Railway, for the recovery of a sum of
money paid by the plaintiff as deposits on a
number of shares applied for by and allotted to him,
in that scheme. The scheme was abandoned, and at
the trial of the cause it appeared that the defendant
never acted on behalf of the concern subsequent to
thin allotment, but had attended one meeting only, at
which he protested against the whole of the proceed-
ings. He had, however, imprudently allowed his
name to stand in the prospectus as chairman of the
committees. The question now concerned in the
case was simply as to the party with whom the con-
tract was made. On that point the evidence was, that
applications for allotments were sent in to the pro-
visional committee, but that the managing committee
finally made the allotment. The Learned Counsel
thereupon contended that there was no contract with
his client, as he was not a member of the managing
committee. The argument on the other side was,
that the contract was made with the whole body of
members, and delivered to the plaintiff by their
secretary, whose evidence was rejected.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said, he was of opinion
that the secretary's evidence was inadmissible, unless
it was supported by the authority of the Board in the
several matters it referred to. He thought, there-
fore, that there should be a rule nisi.
Mr. MARTIN afterwards moved for a new trial, on
the ground of the rejection of the secretary's ev.
dente,

After a long discussion, in which it was endea-
voured to bring the cross rule before the Court, at the
same time as the rule for the nonsuit, by engrafting
it upon the latter, it was finally arranged that the
defendant should take a rule nisi for a nonsuit ; and
that, in the event of its being made absolute, the
plaintiff might take a rule nisi for a new trial.
Rule nisi accordingly.
POTEZ V. GLOSSOP.
In this case Mr. Cocxnuurr moved for a rule nisi
to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff for the sum
of 1001., on the ground of improper rejection of evi-
dence, and misdirection of the Learned Judge who
tried the case.

The action was heard before the Lord Chief Baron
at the Middlesex sittings, and was one an assumpsit
upon two hills of exchange for the sum of 250/., pay.
able four months after date, and bearing date Aug.
29, 1846.
The facts of the case, as shown by the evidence
upon the trial, were the following :—A person of the
name of Gardiner was in the habit of carrying on
business as a bill-discounter, under the name of
Rutter and Co. The place of business occupied by
him was in Pludyer-street, at premises for which he
paid a certain sum for the use of during the day.
Advertisements were inserted in the news-
yapers by Gardiner, offering to advance money
in sums not exceeding 2,000/. upon personal
security at very moderate interest. The defendant
was a clergyman, and was induced in consequence of
these advertisements to apply for money upon the
terms stated. A correspondence ensued upon the
subject, and subsequently the two bills of exchange
which form the subject of this action were ac-
cepted by the defendant and given to Gardiner
Repeated applications were made for the money,
to be advanced upon the bills, but was repeatedly put
off. On the 11th of September a person of the name
of Coyle obtained the sum of 1001. upon one of those
bills from another person of the name of Gadderer,
who, subsequently, took the bills to a Laurence Levy,
who discounted them. A person of the name of Jones
shortly after obtained possessiun of the bills.
The action was brought by a Miss Pottx,
for the purpose of recovering from the defendant, the
acceptor of the bill, the sum of 500/., which she
stated she had advanced to Gadderer for the same.
The name of Miss Potez did not, however, appear
upon either of the bills. A verdict passed at the trial
for the plaintiff for the sum of 1001.
On the part of the defendant a large number of
pleas were placed upon the record, averring that the
bills were obtained by him through fraud and covin,
and that the plaintiff had knowledge of the same, and
certain letters were proposed to be put in from
GardinerGa rd ne r two a
sG laows saorpe,
nwfi
tt
hh e ay
nv
ri epwn s
eo ffashowingh thatthe
acceptances had been given.
The LOND CPIEF BARON refused to receive them
as evidence, and it was now contended that in so
ruling, his Lordship had improperly rejected impor- f
tent evidence, and upon this ground the verdict ought I
to be set aside.

The COURT granted a rule upon this ground, con-

HERAUD V. LEAF.
In this case, which was tried before Mr. Justice
Coltman, and in which the verdict was for defendant,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE moved for a rule for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection, and also that the
verdict was against evidence. This action was brought
to recover the sum of 1121. 19s. for literary articles,
supplied to The Foreign, Colonial, or New Quarterly
Review, of which the defendant was a proprietor. It
appeared that it was originally started in March,
1843, and that certain resolutions were agreed to
respecting the mode in which it should be conducted.
One of them was that Dr. Worthington should be
appointed editor, and that a committee of six proprie-
tors should be formed to assist him in promoting the
circulation of the work, and obtaining as far as pos-
sible, without expense, literary contributions for it,
but not to interfere with the editorial department.
Mr. Powell, one of the committee, introduced the
plaintiff to Dr. Worthington, as a contributor, and
several articles written by him were inserted,' for
which he was paid at the rate of 81. per sheet. Sub-
sequently, however, he wrote an article an the
philosophy of Descartes, which did not accord with
the sentiments of the editor, and it was refused, with
an intimation that no articles from the same
writer ;would be published in the Review.
The plaintiff, however, continued to write, and
handed his papers to Mr. Powell, and they were
inserted as usual, and the present action was brought
to recover the amout due from him. The principal
question upon which he based his application was as
to whether the articles were supplied gratuitously.
Mr. Powell stated at the trial, on the part of the
plaintiff, that the contributions were received, and
understanding that they were to be paid for. Dr.
Worthington, on the other hand, stated that his im-
pression was that they were supplied gratuitously by
Mr. Powell, and that he did not know that they were
the productions of the plaintiff, otherwise he should
not have admitted them. The Judge, in summing
up, left it for the jury to say—first, whether they
believed the articles were supplied gratuitously ; and
second, whether the name of the author had been
fraudulently concaaled from the editor, and if he
would have rejected them had he known that they
were Mr. Heraud's The jury then asked whether
any proprietor could contract for articles without the
consent of the editor, to which the Judge replied in
the negative. The Learned Sergeant new argued
that the words in the resoluaion, to the effect that the
committee should, " as far as possible endeavour to
obtain articles gratuitously," gave Mr. Powell an
authority to contract for articles to be paid for. He
also argued that Mr. Heraud was not liable for any
concealment on the part of Mr. Powell, in not making
the writer's name known. The editor had received
the articles, and carefully considered and altered them
previous to publication, and he submitted that all the
proprietors were liable for the amount due to the
plaintiff, at the rate of 81. per sheet.
The Court, after considerable deliberation, deferred
their decision until to-morrow.