The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-21 00:00:00

GAHATY V. MALONE.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal, oc-
cupied their Lordships the remainder of the morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. April 20.
THE PARCEL POST COMPANY.--HOWARD V. HILL.
Mr. Pasbley and Mr. Henniker conducted the case for the
plaintiff. and Mr. Humfrey with Mr. Lush appeared for the
defendant.
Mr. eASIILEY, in stating the case. said that the action was
brought against the defendant in his character of director of
the Parcel Post Company, for the recovery of 571. 10s., the
value of hay, clover, and straw which had been supplied by
the plaintiff for the use of the company between the 7th of
January and the 4th of February in the previous year. The
defendant, Mr. George Price Hill, was an attorney, having a
house in Soho-square, and a country house at New Hamp-
stead, and had become during the past autumn a director of
this company. The prospectus put forth a most flourishing
description of the prospects—the certainties he might call
them—of the profitable results that must arise from its estab-
lishment and operation. Amongst other advantages it pro-
mised was, first, the payment of 5 per cent. upon the depo-
sits, which was to be paid half-yearly, and then that benefit
was followed up by the promised positive anticipation of
dividing 25 per cent per annum in the shape of profit. The
company appeared to have had a beard of directors, a
secretary, and a superintendent, besides other officers. A
number of horses, about 60, were purchased, and stables
were secured at Islington, in the neighbourhood of Fleet-
street, and near the Elephant and Castle. Well,
these horses must be fed, and. accordingly, they having been
bought on the 6th of January, on the succeeding day the
superintendent, Mr. Smythe, bought a quantity of hay,
clover, and straw of the plaintiff, at the time of the purchase
showing the prospectus to the latter, accompanied with the
statement that those (the directors) were responsible men,
and for them he was making the purchase. On the following
day the plaintiff went to the office and saw the parties, with
whom he made an arrangement to furnish the hay, clover,
and straw. and to be paid his account for the one month on
the Ist of the next. Accordingly, he sent in these articles
until they amounted to 57!. 10s., and then, not obtaining
payment on the let of March as agreed upon, he commenced
the present action. But, observed the Learned Counsel, he
should sot merely prove that the defendant had been pre-
sent at the meetings of the board, but that he had written a
letter begging to be put upon the " horse committee," and
that he had likewise been a member of what was termed the
" executive committee." Moreover, of such importance had
the defendant been in the concern that he had actually ob-
tained permission from his brethren, when it might occur
that he was unable to go to the meeting of the board him-
self, that his brother should attend for and repr«sent him.
Then, it had not been an uncommon circumstance for him to
put up hie own carriage horses at the stables. and to use in
their place the horses belonging to the company. If he
proved these things, he felt that he must at once carry a
verdict for the plaintiff. •
Mr. E. 'l'. Gough was the first witness. He said—l was
the secretary to the Parcel Pest Company, and the resident
manager. The office Ras 67, Fleet-street. It was conducted
by a beard of directors. of where the defendant was one.
The others were the Hon. A. F. Berkeley, Mr. Ashley, Mr.
Owen, Mr. Amcrum, and Me. Parry. Allof these gent:enien
, were in the habit of attcrecteg the meetings, aieueli Mr.
Berkeley and the detentlant were soinetime represented by
their brothers, who acted for them. The defendant attended
himself on several occasions. The company was formed in
last October, and the meetings were held constantly from
that time to January or February. I resigned my office on
the Ist of February, and soon after the company was
abandoned or given up. The object of the company was
to convey parcels from. one part of the town to another,
or within five miles. The capi.al was to have been
30,0001., divided into 6,000 shares, of 5/. each. Mr.
Smythe was appointed the superintendent, and his duty
was to purchase the horses, to provide the f nd, and
what was requisite for them, and, in fact, to attend to that
department. The Original resolution of his appointment
Thetu produce ori g i original at lb bocke
buu gavebut i
ta
and his duties was written by the chairman and banded to
me, tor the purpose of being entered in the minute-book.
the defendant's brother, who expressed a wish to look at it.
Mr. PASEILEY—We have' served the defendant with notice
Cross-examined—
Mr. Baron ALDERaow—Then the question for you now to
prove is, whether the d f dthe meeting when
e en ant was at
Smythe was authorised to make itshnisotrefogrUtthlctontlOin3gl.r. Arthur Hill,
ment to the Ist of Februar and then I resigned because I
found I was left by the directors, and seeing the necessary
I was
in
theethoffiesceopufrrocinhasthese.
result—namely, that as they ha not left any money to pay
the wages of the different men, I might get into a difficulty
—I resigned to protect myself. The number of shares
commence-
actually paid upon was about 400 out of the 6,000. There
were applications for as many as 43,000, but only 400 were
paid upon.
Mr. Baron Aumersox the estimated
—That is I suppose
difference of value as between possession of and anticipated
profits, 400 to 43,000.—(Lau ghter.)
Cross-examination
resumed —The directors were to pay a
share deposit of 7s. per h whilstme• üblic were to pay V. 10s.
, the
per share. There were some however (as the reporter uu-
derstood), who were to , '
pay a deposit of 1!.
Mr. Baron Mantas mi
..37 should the directors pay less
than the public? That fact shows however, that they
knew better the worth of the concern. Was that the
reason?—The witness did not know.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—They did not tell the unhappy
public, I dare say, that the directors were only to pay 75.„
whilst they were to pay 21. 10s. deposit, did they? Vi itness—
I presume not. There were ten directors, but they did not
all take their shares. The defendant attended the meeting
on the 21st of October, and several other times, the last time
in February. The executive committee, of which the de-
fendant was a member, met every day. Parry, Owen, Ashley,
Ancrum, directors, always attended, and so did the superhe
tendent. There was an instruction given to the superinten-
dent to buy corn, hay, straw, ft.
—c., that was necessary for the
horses, by the board on a Friday in January. I heard the
order given to the superintendent, in consequence of that
person having reported that the party to whom he had are
plied for a supply of those articles had come to the office to
ascertain if he was authorised to make the purchases. The
board directed the superintendent to refer the party to me,
and told me to state to him that he was fully authorised by
the directors. I cannot swear that the defendant was pre-
sent at that particular meeting, but there were seven out of
the ten directors there.
Re-examined—The defendant in a conversation with me
said, that as corn was then very dear, he hoped the super-
intendent was aware that great economy in the feed of the
horses would be gained by using beans in its place. The
defendant desired me to direct the attention of the super-
intendent to the subject. occurred"when we were talk-
ing about the weekly expense per horse of their mainte-
nance. At that time we had thirty-seven horses, and I have
not the least doubt that he was fully aware of the fact,
although I cannot undertake to swear that he was. In our
calculation we put down the expense of the keep of each
horse at 11. per week.
A letter was then put in, and read, from the defendant to
the witness, dated December 22, 1846, asking him to suggest
the benefit that would arise to the company by his (defen-
dant) being put on the " Horse Committee."
Richard H. Smythe (the superintendent) said, that he had
received instructions from the board of directors to purchase
provender for the horses, and to sell and buy horses. The
defendant perfectly well knew what his duty was. He had
frequently seen that gentleman at his own private office, at
the office of the company, and at the stables of the company,
and had frequent conversations with him about the horses,
and the nature of their provender. The truth was, that the
defendant had known what he was doing all along as he had
himself. The letter which had just been read the defendant
had shown to him prior to his sending it, at his own office in
Soho-square. On the 6th of January he had bought the
horses, and on the next day he bought two half-loads of
plaintiff, and at the same •
clover and hay of the p time handed
him the prospectus, pointing out theo names of the responsible
ties--namely, the directors, wh would be answerable file
par
any orders he might give. On t e following day the plaintiff
called at the office, and arranged the terms
he on which he was
to supply the provender, and when was to be paid. The
h
agreement was that he was to paidecash the first of each
month. The defendant would of ten come to the stables and
take one of the horses for his
etting into own use
work. . That, however, was
g
prior to the company
Crows-examined—He could not swear that the defendant
had given him any positive directions to make these pur-
chases, but he must have been present at some of the meet-
ings; besides, he had had long conversations with him at his
office, when he had advised that he should use beans instead
corn.of The board had furnished him with money to buy
the horses. That was a cash transaction, but nearly every
other matter was still unp
The attorney to the plaintiff then produced an affidavit
and a paper which had been served upon him by the attorney
for the defendant, wherein the latter pleaded, in abatement
that he was liable only in conjunction with other persons.
Mr. Baron Aumtsox—lf he were liable with others, Mr.
Lush, surely he was liable alone.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for the amount
sought.

PREROGATIVE COURT, April 20.
(Before Sir H. JENNIR
WAXING V. WANING.
The I,mirned Jade delivered fiezteuee cam whiob