The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Feb. 9.

HEWETT V. TURNER.
ai
This was an action in which the plaintiff, who was the secre-
tary to the Tring and Reigate Railway Company, sought to
recover of the defendant, Mr. Turner, M.P., a sum of money
alleged to be due to him for services rendered to the railway
in question, the defendant being at the time the debt was
contracted a member of the provisional committee.
Mr. Humfrey and Mr. T. Saunders were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Pearson for the defendant.
It appeared that the managers of this company came to
a resolution to wind up the affairs of the company, and for
this purpose it was agreed amongst themselves that each
party should subscribe a sum of 1751. towards a fund, to be
placed at the disposal of a committee for the purpose of li-
quidating the outstanding claims upon the committee. The
defendant, however, did not pay his share of the liquidation
fund until some time after the resolutions were passed. Two
actions had been brought against the defendant, of which:the
present was one, the other being set down for trial
at the Guildford assizes in the last term. A few days before
the day appointed for the bearing of the cause the defendant
made an arrangement by which, upon payment of his pro-
portionate share of the fund agreed upon among the di-
rectors, the action was to be stayed.
The defendant now pleaded that the arrangement made
upon payment by him of the sum of 1751. was in satisfac-
tion of the present as well as the former action. It appear.
ing, however, from the evidence of the solicitor to the com-
pany, and several other witnesses, that it was only the pro-
ceedings upon the first action that were to be stayed, the
jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.

WILLINGTON v. GOURNAY.
This was an action brought for the purpose of recovering
compensation in damages for a libel uttered by the defendant
in a letter, which was calculated seriously to affect the
character of the plaintiff.
Sir F. Thesiger appeared to conduct the case on behalf of
the plaintiff, Mr. Martin for the defendant.
The plaintiff was, it appeared, a surgeon, residing at
Twickenham, who had recently established himself in that
town. The defendant, who had previously been an intimate
friend of the plaintiff, was also a member of the medical
profession, carrying on business at Madeley in Shropshire.
The action arose out of the following circumstances :—The
defendant addressed a letter to a Mr. Lichfield, a surgeon of
considerable practice in the same town as the plaintiff, re-
questing to be informed whether the plaintiff was then
residing in that town, adding, as a reason for his troubling
him, he being a perfect stranger to him, that the plaintiff was
indebted to him in a considerable sum of money, which
he had advanced to him when at Warwick, and that since
the time of the plaintiff leaving that town, he (the defendant )
had net been able to hear anything as to his whereabouts.
The letter concluded by stating that any communication on
the subject addressed to him, would be considered, as ho
wished his own letter to be considered, as strictly confiden •
tial. Upon the receipt of this letter, Mr. Lichfield showed
its contents to several persons in Twickenham, which coming
to the knowledge of the plaintiff, a writ was served at the
suit of the plaintiff upon Lichfield, who subsequently de-
livered up the letters of the defendant, and further proceed-
ings in the suit were stayed. and the present action was
brought against the defendant, as the writer of the letter in
question and the originator of the libel.
Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the defendant, contended that
the communication was entirely privileged and confidential,
summingthey
thought
that there was nothing libelloauspi
perfectly
fo thett
lhy b
contents n ttya, however,
erntfis
de; if so, the
verdict
that theo ft letter,e
to
and the sole object the defendant had in writing, was to ob-
tain information of the residence of the plaintiff.
The LORDcniEF BARON,
lad ina be
wassnSt
however,n g up, deprecated
the
practice of laying actions for libels simply. because a ground
of
consideraction
whether
defendantor the
mustbe
existed.
fthe
It
wisheddefwletterwould
w
defendant;
to Injure the character of the
after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
plaiatiff, then their verdict would be for the plaintiff
The jury,.
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 9.
Before Lord Chief Justice WILDS and a Special Jury.)
TILE LEEDS, FLEETWOOD, AND LTVERVOOL RAILWAY.—.
GRIFFIN AND ANOTHER V. BEVERLEY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Griffin and Taunton,
acting engineers of the .‘ Leeds, Fleetwood, and Liverpool
Railway," one of the schemes of last year, to recover for work
d h abour done, y
ere npea ,
preparatory preparing the plans and specifications
to an application to Parliament. The
sued as members of the provisional committee
defendantsoa
of
tle line,
,poe
of management.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Parry were for the
plaintiffs; 'Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Bramwell for the
defence.
indebted.
the defendants pleaded not
evidence adduced for the plaintiffs it appeared
From the
The sum sought to be recovered was about 2,4001., to which
that the company was projected in the autumn of 1845 by
engineer, who subsequently nominated
.1!,(11.r..
AMleoxnatangdueer,Ba
n Blackie as secretary, and Mr. H. Reginald
Hill, solicitor. On the Bth of October the managing com-
mittee were appointed, and at the same time a long list of
provisional directors was published, containing the names of
Lord George Bentinck, and other well-known noblemen and
gentlemen. In the published list of the committee of man-
agement appeared the names of Mr. B. Baldwin, M.P., as
chairman; John Anderson, vice-chairman; and the two
defendants, Mr. Robert Beverley, and Mr. John Jackson, of
Leeds, as members. The names of the plaintiffs also were
attached to the prospectuses and advertisements as the act-
ing engineers. In the early part of 1846 the scheme was
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 9. altogether abandoned.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE and a S pecial J Several witnesses were called to prove that the defendants
ury.)
STEALING A BODY AND CREATING A PI . 01....... TH
---IC QUEEN v, went. The evidence, however, was not at all conclusive, as
HAYNES AND OTHERS,of the
This extraordinary case, which has been postponed had consented to be placed on the committee of manage-
it did not appear that they had attended any . . ,
hweithhadgi
It was an indictmenNt.chirging the defendants, Mr. Joseph
from meetings of the the board, at which the preliminary.
time to time, at length came on for trial this morning, at
the sitting of the Court. measures for forwarding the scheme were taken; and
Bailie Haynes, Mr.
Edward Ilaynes, and persons named
Thomas Haynes Smith, endeavoured to be proved b the fact that the defendant had
Cullum, Sog, Porter,
and iaamed Cole, Phillipps, Groves, received several newspapersywith his name announced as a
regardvea
hie
Mcorn.seJnatclistoonb,e thaemreemwbaesr.noTehvtaideiice
assent thatwas
the late Mr. Joseph Haynes, others,a ewithti stealing the body of member of the committee, and had not dissented to the same.
property, who at the time of 'his Lanthernan of considerable Mr. Sergeant BYEEB submitted that there was no case for
and with creating a riot whilst forciblyresided at Edgeware the jury, more especiall as it rarded the defendant Jackson.
carrying
away. the body Mr. Sergeant Cann's?? lie cl.
ELL rep
The Attorney-General, Mr. M. Chambers His LORDSHIP, after reviewing the case at some length,
son were for the prosecution ; and Sir F...._, and. Mr. Clark- decided that there was not sufficient evidence adduced to
Cockburn for the defendants. Thesiger and Mr. establish the liability of the defendants.
It appeared from the opening of the Attorney_General Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL tendered a bill of exception, and,
•
and from the statements of the witnesses for, in order to admit of its acceptance by the Court, a verdict
prosecution—which will be better understood in tulle was taken for the defendants.
form of a narrative than as disjointed pieces of VHS NORTH-WESTERN TRUNK RAILIVAY.—BARKEH V.
evidence—that Mr. Haines died suddenly on Friday, the ThisLYNDON.
19th of December, 1845, and that arrangement had been t• • was an action brought by Mr. C. Barker, the adver-
made by his executors, r. Barton and Mr. Slater, for his t'isUlg agent, to recover for work and labour done in adver-
interment on the 28th of the same month. Ills body, after .‘%rensf the prospectus of a certain scheme called " The North.
having undergone a post-mortem examination, was placed in was aern .Railway Trunk Company," of which the defendant
a coffin in the usual way. He had been estranged from his provisional director. The latter is a hardware manu-
factur,
family for some years, and the only inmates of his dwelling, Mr.e." residing at Birmingham.
besides the domestics, were two ladies named Huggins, Mr. ockburn and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiffs,
the youngest of whom was 18, and the eldest 28, Mr. Sergeantt Ryles and Mr. Kean for the defendante.
whom he used to say, were his neices, but it appeared He statedcru" opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
that they were not related to him. By his will he left his a person oft 'is
scheme was projected in September, 1845, by
son, the first-named defendant, about 100/. a year, and the bett, a s
ithe name of Mr. Brown, the friend of Mr. Gar-
reversionary interest of some property for himself and his who It
solicitor, residing at Wellington, in Shropshire,
children. The other persons named Hay•nes were related to line. It also connected with the Shropshire Mineral
the family. Haynes Smith was an illegitimate son of the bett and ?%1I)i-Pealried that in the begining of October Mr. Gar.
deceased. He left the eldest Miss Huggins 500/. a year, and attend a ineeti ugil were coming up to London to arrange to
two houses for her lifetime. On Saturday, the 27th of De- pened to meet nu- of the provisional
railways,director ADO,.
..hey hap
cember the first-named defendant obtained the key of the room was the time whie defendant in the 'carriage. This which the body was deposited for the purpose, as he stated, of many, and ,teh visions of Premium° floated in the minds
of seeing his father for the last time. His two little boys parties, it conversation hav;ns.
endedstarted between the
were with him. Several persons came at the same a provisional di n the defends- 'Consenting to become
time, according to their statement, for a similar purpose, and prospectus was issued,reetor. h
't
tly after this a revised
they were brought up in couples until the room contained as incorrectly, and .in a -
stately
ewhich his name a ea d
many as fourteen. lie tried to induce Mrs. Halcorn, the quently he conswhicl ' proof of . PE re
.., he caused to be corrected. Subse-
person who accompanied the party at the request of Miss being a ,*.
~ented to take 150 shares, in virtue of
Huggins, to leave the room ; but she would not, as she had shares ..erector, but panic taking
the
received no direction. He excused the staying of the party re . were not issued. Eventually an arrangement was
by saying that they were waiting for a lady named Davie- -ade to give up the line,and to meet the expenses gone to.
Immediately after the servant announced that the cofr .... I The defendant, as oneof the directors, was written to, to
arrived, ani Mrs. Halcorn requested them to to -,a had contribute his share of the expense, when he returned an
Burton had given directions that as soon r- -.lye, as Mr. answer to the effect that h dnevergiven •
ehad
it should be soldered up. The coffin. 1 ..a the coffin came sanction to be a • •
provisional director, and would
one expected. The defendant 0 , ..owever, was not the have nothing whatever
Ito do with the matter.. Under
after opening it said to a -aen went to the door, and thc.te air,...ur.-.stssices tie,
? p anainF haviiii; goile t., cel2,lLitrublu
was William Haynes, " - person outside, who, it appeared, expense in advertising the scheme, and not being paid his
I ,', You, from the High Court of Chan- account, he selected the defendant as a solvent person, from

GEILS C. GEILS.
This case came before their Lordships upon appeal from
the decision of the Court of Arches.
Upon the case being called on,
Lord BROUGHAM, on the part of their Lordships, desired
all parties except those connected with the case to with-
draw; he did so because the facts of the case were of so in-
delicate a nature that the public morals required that they
should not be put forth before the world.
Strangers then withdrew, and the argument on the case
occupied their Lordships in private the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Feb. 9.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND).
HisHonour the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND sat in
his Court in Lincoln's-Inn to-day and took motions, but no
case of any public interest came before his Honour during
the morning.