The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 7.
BUXTGN V. POLHILL-RAILWAY LIABILITIES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the sum of 191. 195., for services rendered as clerk to the
Cambridge and Colchester Railway Company.
The defendant, who was sued as a provisional com-
mitteeman, &c., pleaded that he was not indebted.
This ease diffared very slightly from the many which
have lately occupied the public attention. It appeared,
from the statement of counsel and evidence, that in 1845
a company was proposed, to be called the Cambridge
and Colchester Railway Company. The plaintiff was at
the offices, acting as clerk, from August, 1845, but the
defendant had nothing to do with the Company till the
24th of Ootober, although his name was kept on the
prospectuses till the company broke up. No deposits had
been paid in, and it was contended that the defendant
merely attended two meetings with a view of effecting
an amalgamation with another company, in order to ren-
der it effoctive ; but that as that could not be effected,
he withdrew on the Bth of November, and never autho-
rised his name to be used. It also appeared that a docu-
ment had been signed by the parties intending to act as
provisional directors, in which plaintiff and another per-
son were described as trustees.
Mr. UDALL submitted that there was no evidence to
go to the jury, for the terms of the agreement with
the plaintiff had not been proved in evidence,
and in the absence of that it must be taken
that there was a yearly hiring by some per-
sons long previously to the defendant joining the con-
cern. In support of his argument he quoted the case of
" Fossettt and Ca-h," 5 Adol. and Ellis ; and that, at
all events, the defendant could only be held liable from
the 24th of October to the Bth of November, the only
period at which it was proved the defendant was at all
connected with the proposed company, besides which, the
duties performed by plaintiff was consistent with his cha-
racter as trustee.

The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said the question as
to the hiring and liability of parties joining had not
been raised before, and if Mr. Udall felt confident, and
would agree to a verdict, the writ should be retained, to
apply to the court as to whether there was evidence.
Mr. Udall said he should go to the jury, as to amount;
whether the defendant, if liable at all, was liable for
more than during the time he was connected.
Mr. Lusa replied, and urged that the clerk must
have been appointed for the general purposes of the
company. As to the duties being performed as a trustee
the observations could be met by showing that it was
usual to make the secretary and clerk nominal trustees,
in order to comply with the Act of Parliament.
The UNDER-SHERIFF left the jury to say whether the
parties bad acted under any agreement. If the defend-
ant had held himself out as liable, and the plaintiffs had
relied upon him for payment, then the defendant was
liable ; if there had not been any agreement, or they
had not acted towards each other, as the employer and
the employed, then defendant was entitled to a verdict.
Verdict for the defendant, but the Under-Sheriff
stayed the writ.

SAUNDERSON V. TROLLOPE.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
61. 113., the amount of a farrier's bill. The defendants
pleaded that they were not indebted.
Mr. SINON stated the case. The plaintiff is a farrier,
and the defendants are highly respectable house de-
corators, and the claim was for work done in 1845 and
1546. It was singular that although the defendants had
pleaded that they were not indebted, they had claimed
rent of some premises occupied by him, and offered to
allow the amount of the bill out of the rent. Under
these circumstances all doubt as to the fairness of the
demand was removed, and, he should contend, the
collateral question as to the liability to pay rent.
There was some dispute between the parties as to the
liability of plaintiff to pay rent to the defendants which
led to the dispute, or he was quite sure the defendants
would not have resisted the present claim. The Learned
Counsel then called

Mr. Robinson, V the defendant's groom to prove the
work was done.

Mr. Hoggins said he did not wish to cause the least
unnecessary trouble, and would admit that the work was
done for the three first-named defendants, William Trol-
lope had nothing to do with the cone: rn.
It was then shown that Mr. William Trollope was not
in the business, being an articled clerk to a solicitor.
Mr. SIMON said, that under these circumstances he
must submit to a nonsuit.
Mr. Hoggins said that the defendants and their rela-
tives had carried on business for more than a century,
and they would not have refused payment except on
good grounds, the fact was as defendant was not in-
debted to the lour, the four could not plead the set-off.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Ann Alexander, aged 25, described in the calendar as
a married woman, was convicted of stealing a watch and
other articles from the person of William Charnock.
The prisoner, who, it appeared, was in league with one
or two men, solicited the prosecutor to accompany her,
and, whilst doing so, snatched the articles from him.
—She was sentenced to transportation for ten years.
In the case of coining, reported yesterday, we fell into
an error, in consequence of the Learned Judge who
tried the case (Mr. Justice Maule) omitting to state, in
sentencing the prisoner for fifteen years on each con-
viction, that "each sentence was to commence and end
at the same time." The prisoner was, therefore, sen-
tenced to fifteen years' traasportation, and not to thirty,
as stated.
MANBLAUGHTER.-Matthew Ford, aged 21, an omnibus
driver, was indicted for the manslaughter of William
Fiddy, a driver of one of Mr. Ball's Brixton omnibuses.
The occurrence took place on Brixton-hill on the
16th of December last. From the evidence adduced,
which, as in all similar cases, was extremely contradic-
tory, it appeared, that about five o'clock on the day in
question, the two omnibuses were proceeding along at a
rapid pace, the omnibus driven by the prisoner being
slightly in advance of the one in charge of the deceased.
The prisoner gradually " slewed " his omnibus across
the road, in order to prevent the deceased driving past.
The sudden drawing up brought the deceased's omnibus
against a lamp-post, and he was thrown from the box,
and received such injuries that he died in about ten
days after. No collision took place between the omni-
buses. The prisoner was, however, on the " off" side
at the time, the "near "one being his proper side. The
men drove rival omnibuses, and being actuated by a
spirit of rivalry, evidently were not particular in their
courtesies, and annoyed each other in the way described,
passing each other when an eligible opportunity offered,
and each availing himself of every means by which he
could keep his vehicle ahead. One or two of the wit-
nesses stated that the men were both to blame.
Mr. Ballantine was fur the prosecution, and Mr.
Clarkson for the prisoner.
Mr. CLARKSON contended that the prisoner was
wholly blameless, and that the deceased alone caused the
accident which resulted in his death.
Mr. Justice MAULE summed up ; and,
The jury acquitted the prisoner.