The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-07 00:00:00

DEAN AND OTHERS V. HAIGH.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Bovill
were counsel for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Huinfrey, Q.C.,
anal Mr. Wood represented the defendants.
The plaintiffs are Parliamentary agents, carrying on
business at 19, Fludyer-street, Westminster; and the
defendant, Mr. John Haigh, resides at Leeds. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 4451. odd, the
amount of the plaintiffs' bill of costs for their services in
promoting a Bill before Parliament last session for in-
corporatin a company for constructing a railway to be
called the St. Albans, Hatfield, and Hertford Junction

Railway. It appeared that when this undertaking was
originally set on foot a provisional committee, of which
the defendant was one, was appointed. This committee
was very soon superseded by another body. called the
committee of management, of which the defendant was
not a member, though he occasionally attended its
meetings as the representative, as was alleged, of the
shareholdyrs residing at Leeds. In January, 1546, the
failure of the Leeds and Weat ltidin - Rank occurred, in
which the funds of the railway company were deposited,
which led to the dissoluti,n of the company in the fol-
lowing June. Subsequently various meetings of the
directors were held with the view to wind up the affairs
of the company; and eventually, for this purpose, three
of the principal shareholders, of which three the defen-
dant was one, were empowered to act as trustees for
compounding with the Leeds Bank, paying the creditors ot
the company, and Gividing the balance among the share-
holders, there being, however. a; it turned Out, no balance
to divide. At one time the funds of the company seemed
sufficient to pay the creditors a composition of 15s. in
the pound. The plaintiffs, however, had all along re-
fused to accept anything short of the full amount of their
account, which appeared to be made out in the first in-
stance on a very reasonable scale, being 150/. short of
what they might have fairly claimed (but when they
found that there was a difficulty of recovering their de-
Mand from the company without resorting, to leg,-!l pro-
ceedings, they intimated to the defendant their intention
of insisting upon payment of the additional sum they
were entitled to charge. The plaintiffs had selected the
defendant from the provisional directors and sued him
for their bill of costs, with the liability for which they
now sought to fix him, he having refused to settle the
bill amicably.
For the plaintiffs, Mr. More, the secretary of the de-
funct company, proved that the defendant wag placed
upon the original provisional committee, but that his
name was omitted from the committee of management
which shortly afterwards superseded the provisional
committee ; that he attended the meetings of the com-
mittee of management occasionally, but only as repre-
senting a large body of shareholders resident at Leeds ;
that on the failure of the Leeds Bank he was requested
to act as a director of the company in the place of Mr.
Smith, who was the manager of the bank, and that he
refused, though he subsequently acted with others in the
capacity of a trustee fer winding up the concerns of the
bank. The deed executed by the defendant, appointing
him and others trustees to wind up the affairs of the
coucern,contained a recital referring to a deed executed
previously, in which the defendant, amongst others, was
ilded one of the directors of the company.
itr. u
FREY, for the defendant, submitted that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited. The defendant was not
one of the ni•
case of an action-I"'
committee, and it was the common
director, when i against a provisional committeeman, or
point of fact there was a managing
committee, withnprn: additional strong circumstance,
that it had been
the plaintiff's own witness,
that the defendant te7Olkby
the managing committee, no part in the proceedings of
I),t)nesi3trn'atiTe'gwilthtothteorawna:
oc-
casionally, from Leedso,nt.:/e,re
anythar.tr he had no control
how they were goingto
over the funds of the comp
Learned Counsel
to the jury so
submitted there was no evideneo the
the plain-
as to fix the defendant with the lia;;llgit'les
having
tiff's demand.
Mr. Sergeant CitaNNELL and Mr. Boa.mt.
replied,
the LORD CHIEF JI7STICE, in summing up the
ca
told the jury that it appeared that at the commenceniene'
of the company a meeting was held at which certain
gentlemen were present ; they resolved that a company
should be established, and the defendant was recognised
as a provisional director, but at that met Ling six persons
were nominated as a managing committee of directors.
Now, as between those called provisional
. directors and
those called the managing committee of directors, what
was the authority deputed ? The defendant, it was true,
was called a prontional director ; what power
.hall, he,
as between him and those who acted as the committfe of.
management ?—as he (the Learned Judge) collected,
none. The committee of management took to themselves
the whole exclusive power. There was no doubt that
the defendant was bound by the acts done by that
managing committee in the general course of manage-
ment of the committee, but that by no means led to the
conclusion that he gave them that authority to do those

acts upon his own individual pecuniary responsibility.
The funds of the company were placed in the hands of
certain trustees to make arrangements with the
creditors; and, as far as the defendant was concerned, it
was perfectly plain that there was no evidence against
the defendant, that he ever gave authority for his credit
to be held out to the-plaintiffs as the foundation for them
to act upon. In the absence of evidence which could
properly be made the foundation of an authority actually
given, and, as it appeared to him (the Learned Judge),
also in the absence of evidence of the managing com-
mittee having contracted with the plaintiffs on the per-
sonal credit of the defendant, and if the defendant could
only be bound by actual authority, the plaintiffs must of
course be nonsuited.

The plaintiffs were nonsuited accordingly.
HEMP V. ORATES.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Hugh Hill
were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Phinn represented the
defendant.

This was another action against a provisional com-
mitteeman. The plaintiff, Mr. N. J. Kemp, for a con-
siderable length of time had been the secretary of the
Midland Grand Junction Railway Company; and the
defendant, Mr. C. Twizleto❑ Graves, who is a captain
in the navy, acted as one of the directors of that
company. The action was brought to recover 125/.,
the amount of salary due to the plaintiff. At a genera l
meeting of the promoters of the scheme, on the 23(1 of
October, 1845, they resolved themselves into a provisional
committee, when, among other things, they appointed
the pleintiff the secretary, at a salary of 3501. per annum.
There was a meeting on the 29th of the same month,
at which the defendant was present, which confirmed the
minutes of the meeting on the 23d, at which meeting
the defendant was not present. At a meeting on the
16th of April the secretary's salary was reduced to 3001.
The plaintiff's father and brother were members of the
provisional committee ; he himself interested himself in
getting up the company, and continued to act as secre-
tary up to the 31st of March in the present year. The
defendant attended almost the whole of the meetings of
the provisional committee, and on one occasion signed,
with two others of the committeemen, a cheque upon
the bankers of the company for 861. 10s., for a quarter's
salary due to the plaintiff. It was resolved at one of the
earliest meetings to prepare a deed of indemnity from
the secretary, solicitors, engineers, and promoters of the
company, to keep harmless the members of the provi-
sional committee against the expenses incident to the
formation of the company ; that resolution appeared
never to have been acted upon, and it was passed before
the officers named in it had been appointed. The de-
posits of the shareholders never exceeded 2001.
Mr. PIIINN, for the defendant, said, the question for
the jury was, whether there was any promise, as laid
in the declaration, to pay the plaintiff, on request, his
salary. Captain Graves, the defendant, felt very keenly
the hardness of the plaintiff's selecting him from the
committee as the person to he sued, and leaving the
defendant to the poor expedient of a remedy over
against his brother directors. He submitted that the
resolution respecting the indemnity deed, though it was
never acted upon, went to show that the plaintiff
demand was founded in bad faith and a violation of the
agreement between the parties, and that the plaintiff
looked, not to the individual members of the provisional
committee, one of whom was his father and another his
brother, but to the deposits of the company for remu-
neretion for his services.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE told the jury, the simple
question for them to decide was, upon what terms di,!
the plaintiff perform his services as secretary for which
he claimed to be remunerated. They would have to
consider the construction to be put upon the resolution
passed at an early stage of the company's existence, by
which the secretary, solicitors, and engineers of the
company were to indemnify the members of the pro-
visional committee. This resolution had been passed
before any of those officers had been appointed. Did
that resolution mean that the provisional directors were
to be indemnified only up to the time when it was
adopted by them ? or did it go forward prospectively
to affect those members who should afterwards act as pro-
visiomd committeemen ? The jury would have to con-
sider whether, by the terms of this resolution, the plain-
tiff was to be employed upon the personal responsibility
of the directors, or was to indemnify them, or whether
it ha I any other meaning which entitled the plaintiff to
call for payment.
The jury found for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. H. Hugh O'Donnell Clayton, a young
gentleman lately an officer in the army, and residing in
Bury-street, St. James's, was brought before Mr. Jar-
dine, charged with sending threatening letters to Mr.
Gilbert East.
Mr. Williams, a solicitor, of the firm of Cox and
Williams, produced several letters, and, handing them
up to the bench, stated his belief that they were in the
handwriting of the defendant. They were understood to
convey a threat that the writer would assassinate Mr. G.
East or his son unless some request preferred by him
were forthwith granted. Mr. Williams had formed his
judgment upon the writing by means of comparison.
The defendant said nothing to the eharge.
No further particulars of the matter transpired in
Court.
His Woastnr remanded the defendant for further
examination.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Mr. M 1.41114131 yesterday proceeded to givo judgment
in the case of Sir G. Berkeley v. Attenhorough. which
was argued before him last week. He said the points in
the case were of too great nicety to be settled at guar er
sessions; they ought to be decided by a higher court.
He would give every facility for taking the case to the
courts at Westminster; but he certainly did not ace
that the quarter sessions were in a position to give a
much better decision than he had given, and there was
this reason—that it was probable the decision of the

quarter sessions would be appealed against. There was
nu dispute about the facts; so the best way would he to
state a general issue, and let the superior courts of law
decide the question.
Mr. Attenborough said he hoped he sto, d before the
Court without any impeachment of character fur having
contested the point._ _

Mr. BINGISAM said, certainly. He was only an in-
nocent recipient of the goods, and he was perfectly
juititied in trying what was the effect of an Act of Par-
liament.
The plaintiff's solicitor applied for the restoration of
other property not included in the summons.
Mr. Attenborough would readily give up that pro-
perty also. It was not a question of pounds, shillings,
and pence with him. It was a question as to the proper
construction of an Act of Parliament. Mr. Attenho-
rough also denied that the plate had on it the family
arms of Sir G. Wrkeley.
MARY LEBONE.

Yesterday a young man, who gave his name Thomas
Willis, and said that he lived at 23, Lewisham-street,
Westminster, was charged by Mr. Collard, soperinter,
dent of the Great Western Railway- C.9mpany's pollee,
with having practised a trick cf very frequent occur-
rence, via., that of riding a greater distance than that
for which fare had been pa;d.
The evidence went to show that on Saturday evening
last the defendant took a ticket for a third•class carriage
from Puxton to Faringdon-road, for which he paid
Is. 5d., the distance being seventeen miles; he, however,
thought fit to ride on to London, and when the excess
fare, ss. 3d., was demanded of him, he said he had no
cash, but expected his friends to meet him on the plat-
form shortly; none of them, however, arrived, and Mr.
Collard, after perusing a letter found in the defendant's
pocket, in which his mother had expressed her determi-
nation not to assist him any further, it was deemed ne-
cessary to give him into custody.
The defendant in default of paying los, for the offence,
in addition to the ss. 3d. claimed on th© part of the
company, was committed.
Wm. Grummett, John flail, Henry Windsor, George
Windsor, George Radley, and James :Spencer, were
finally examined on the charge of having unlawfully
pond at the enclosed part of Earl
draggedNfans6dcs for
pfiasrh in a
k, Caen Wood, Hamptead, and stolen
therefrom between 401 b. and 501 b. weight of carp, tench,
perch, &c.
Mr. Lewis attended for the prosecution, and Mr. Ro-
binson for the prisoners.

Some particulars of what previously transpired have
already appeared.
The whole of the depositions were now read over by
Mr. Phillips, the clerk, and the accused parties were all
committed for trial. Bail was taken for their being
forthcoming at the sessions.

WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday James Shaw Foster, a middle-aged man in
apparently very bad health, was placed at the bar before
Mr. Haminill, charged with obtaining money by false
and fraudulent pretence from tradesmen transmitting
and receiving goods by the Eastern Counties Railway.
William Fearn, clerk in the grain department at the
goods station, in Brick-lane, Spitalfields, stated that it
was the duty of the prisoner, who was a clerk in the
same department, and had been in the company's service
several years, to make out from the invoices duplicate
copies of tickets for grain sent by the carmen for deli-
very to houses in town, and that in consequence of it
having been discovered by accident that fraudulent
overcharges were being committed an investigation was
set on foot, when it was established that the prisoner
had been implicated in such transactions, and he was
thereupon given into custody.
John Bolton, clerk to Messrs. Noble, the seedsmen in
Fleet-street, proved that on the 19th of last month their
house received by one of the company's trains 114 quar-
ters of peas from the country, for the freightage of
which 13s. l Id, was charged in a bill he produced, and
Bs. for the cartage. The bill and goods were delivered
by a man named King, the carter employed, to whoa I
the money was paid, and who receipted the ticket.
Mr. Fearn proved that the ticket in question was in '
the prisoner's handwriting, and, producing a book in
which the proper amount was entered, deposed that
Messrs. Noble had been greatly overcharged, and that
the prisoner had only paid to him the correct value of
the freightage and delivery.
Sergeant Price, who took the accused into custody,
stated, ti, that upon so doing he told him it was all a mis
mibtltee,dwi
when
ethe
b ehrourrer hurry of
eo t
magistrate, business,
to
ondp r thato ye i l e
should be a
that
pon being called upon for his defence,
it was Sot but
again for the coyte, the prisoner
and was ordered to be brought up
of the evidence.
didMOC.4I-olAffemr3tiaLni, L'..l:ted to accept bail if the prisoner
h coulder
fofirned
rietm, bouv te
dh ei
nNevtuhe
vuantable to do so, and he was
a direction being placed
on the commitment that his health should be looked to
a. E
youngS T M ImNa Sn T E R
about
by the surgeon of the gaol.
twenty years of
charged with plundering his
Henry Laurence,W
age, wasfather, Mr. John
Laurence, a fishmonger, at 2, Motcombe-street, 13el-
graye-square, to a considerable extent.
The prisoner has for a series of years been in the

• habit of robbing his father, and has by his violence and
outrageous conduct become the terror of his family. On
tho night of the 27th of last August the prosecutor's
premises were entered by the back kitchen window, and
a quantity of linen stolen. The prisoner was very
strongly suspected, but no proceedings were taken
against him at that time. On the morning of the 20th
of November, after the prosecutor had gone to market,
his house was again entered, and a valuable timepiece,
some coats, and other articles of wearing apparel stolen,
and in a few days afterwards the prisoner, meeting his
brother, who resides with his father, gave him the
duplicates of the stolen property. On Thursday morning
last the prosecutor became alarmed on hearing a noise
at a very early hour in his house, and feeling confident
that somebody had broken into it, called the police. It
was then discovered that the prisoner was in the lower
part of the premises. Upon Sergeant Mackensie, 58,
proceeding to the back kitchen, he found the door bar-
ricaded; and upon his attempting to enter by the window
• the prisoner made some desperate blows at him with a
• fish-tray, and demolished the window frame. The ser-
geant sent for assistance, and having placed two coasts-
! bles at the window, with the help of a third forced the
door, whe❑ the prisoner struck him with an iron bar,
but was immediately disarmed. The prisoner, who re-
sisted ♦iolently, was then conveyed to the station.
• Evidence having been given against the prisoner in
support of the charge of the 20th of November, he was
committed for trial upon that, but as the evidence as to
.the burglary on the 27th of August was incomplete, he
was ordered to be brought up again before the magistrate
on Thursday next.
As the prisoner, who said he knew nothing about the
things, was leaving the dock he suddenly rushed towards
hisj brother, who had given evidence of receiving some
duplicates from him, and inflicted a desperate blow under
his right eye, from which the blood immediately flowed
copiously. As this took place in the presence of the
magistrate (Mr. Burrell), he directed that it should be
added to the depositions on the next examination.
SOUTHWARK.
Yesterday Thomas Lewis, the master of the Robust,
was summoned fur refusing to deliver up possession of
the certificate of register of that vessel.
Mr. Edward Jenkins stated that he was one of the
registered owners of the Robust, which belonged to a
society called the True Britons, at Aberystvrith, in
Wales ; that he and the other two trustees, being de-
sirous to remove the defendant from the command of
the vessel, had applied to him for the register, but he
refused to deliver it up, and stilt remained on board.
On the part of the defendant, it was contended that the
majority of the society to which the vessel belonged
wished him to remain in command, and that the com-
plainant and the other two registered owners had a
sinister object in view in attempting to get possession of•
the certificate of register and turning the defendant out
of the vessel. Documents were also put in to show that
the society to which the ship belonged were desirous
that the defendant should still remain as master, and also
to show that the complainant, not having obeyed some
of the rules by which the society was guided, had,
therefore, no authority to act in the disposition of its
affairs.
O❑ the other hand, it was submitted that the com-
plainant had a right to the register, being one of the
three individuals to whom it was granted.
After a considerable discussion on the point,
The Magistrate decided that the complainant was en-
titled to the register, but that, under the peculiar circum-
stances of the case, if the defendant refused to deliver
up the possession o: the document he should mitigate
the penalty from 1001. to 101.
The defendant, by the advice of his solicitor, refused
to give up the register, and the latter fine was inflicted,
which was immediately paid, and the parties withdrew.
Two men, named Capton and Hands, were brought up
for re-examination, charged with stealing a watch from
Thomas Plume, a shipwright.
It appeared that a few nights since, as the complainant
was walking borne, accompanied by another man, the
two prisoners rushed against them, and in a moment
Hands drew a watch out of the pocket of the former,
and both prisoners run away. They were, however,
soon afterwards taken into custody, and when Hands
was in gaol he sent for a man named Fitzgerald, in-
formed him that the complainant's watch was at his
house, and begged him to go and get it from his wife
and throw it into the Thames, in order that it might
not be produced as evidence against him. Fitzgerald
acceded to a part of the request ; he obtained the watch,
but, instead of throwing it into the river, he took it
forthwith to the owner, and offered to deliver it up if he
consented not to appear against the prisoner. The com-
plainant, however, refused to adopt such a suggestion,
and a policeman being present, Fitzgerald was taken
into custody himself, but the magistrate, on being ap-
prised of the real facts of the case, and thet the latter
person had no hand in the robbery, and was ignorant
that he was acting contrary to law, ordered him to be
discharged, and committed the other two prisoners for
trial.