The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-21 00:00:00

NG, JANUARY 21,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BEIVCH, Jan. 20

The Court took the Crown paper to-day. None but
disputed pauper settlement and parish cases came on for
argumert during the morning. They involved no points of
public interest.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 20.
LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.
FLOWER V. ROPER.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 881. due
from the defendant to the plaintiff, for work and labour done,
and upon an account stated.
Mr. Wordsworth appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. New-
ton, with whom was Mr. Hatherton, appeared for the de-
fendant.

The facts of the case were very brief. It appeared from
the statement of counsel, and from the witnesses examined,
'that the defendant, Mr. Roper, was a gentleman of
property, and the plaintiff, Mr. Flower, is a soli-
citor. In the year 1846 a railway company. called the
Liverpool, Gloucester, Salisbury, Devizes, and Southampton
Railway was started. The defendant, amongst other gen-
tlemen, gave his written consent to have his name placed
upon the provisional committee. The written consent was
dated the 13th of Dec., 1845, although the registration of
the company did not take place for some time afterwards.
The attorneys and solicitors were appointed for the company
on the very day upon which the defendant had given his
consent. The plaintiff was one of those solicitors, and in
the duties consequent upon that appointment the present
expenses were incurred.
On the cross-examination of the witnesses, it was admitted
that Mr. Flower had, by way of showing that he had not
selected the defendant by any undue preference, brought six
other actions for this bill. A managing committee was ap-
pointed soon after the defendant joined the provisional com-
mittee. The sum of three guineas was charged by the
plaintiff for each attendance at the board of directors of the
company. The Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud, and South-
ampton Railway Company was am gamated with the
railway of which the defendant was a member, on
the 13th of December, the day on which the defendant
placed his name on the provisional committee of the joint
company called the Liverpool, Gloucester, Salisbury, and
Devizes, and Southampton Railway Company.
Mr NEWTON objected, on the part of the defendant, that
he was in any case not liable for more than the amount
of the bill from the 13th of December to the appoint-
ment of the managing committee. He also objected that it
did not appear what number of the provisional committee
were to form a quorum, and therefore many of the proceed-
ings of that committee might have been illegal, as it had
not been shown that the proper number attended.
He also objected that a great many of the proceedings
for which charges had been made bad taken place
before the 13th of December, when, although the de-
fendant was in the habit of attending meetings of the
company, there was nothing to render him in any was liable.
Mr. Flower had also neglected to prove the attendances,
which comprised the heavier portion of his bill.
Mr. Justice ERLE said that if the Counsel on either side
would allow him to consider of the case until to morrow
morning, he would decide whether the plaintiff should be
nonsuited, subject to the objections of Mr. Wordsworth, or
the defendant should be rendered liable, subject to the motion
of Mr. Newton. The only question was as to the amount.
Both Counsel expressed their readiness to come to an ar-
rangement.
Mr. NEwrow then addressed the jury.
The Learned JUDGE having sun:mei' up,
The jury found found for the plaintiff.—Damages, 171.
Bs. 6d., the amount from the 13th of December to the ap
pointment of the managing committee.
The case of Richards r. Lord Maidstone, which stood for
trial this morning, was, by consent, postponed until the sit-
tings after term.