The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-09 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.).

Sittings before Lord Chief Justice-WILDE and a Special
Jury.)

TILE LEEDS, FLEETWOOD, ANn LIVERPOOL 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
and labour done, in preparing the plans and specifications
of the line, preparatory to an application to Parliament. The
defendants were sued as members of the provisional committee
of management.
Mr. Sergeant Channel and Mr. Parry were for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Bramwell for the
defence.

The sum sought to be recovered was about 2,0007., to which
the defendants pleaded not indebted.
From the evidence adduced for the plaintiffs, it appeared
that the company was projected in the autumn of 1845 by
Mr. Montague, an engineer, who subsequently nominated
Mr. Alexander B. 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
altogether abandoned.
Several witnesses were called to prove that the defendants
had consented to be placed on the Committee of Manage-
ment. The evidence, however, was not at all conclusive, as
it did not appear that they bad attended any of the
meetings of the the board, at which the preliminary
measures for forwarding the scheme were taken; and
with regard to Mr. Jackson, there was no evidence that
he had given his consent to be a member. This assent was
endeavoured to be proved by the fact that the defendant had
received several newspapers with his name announced as a
member of the committee, and had not dissented to the same.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES submitted that there was no case for

the:jury, more especially as it regarded the defendant, Jackson.
Mr. Sergeant CH ANFELL replied.
His LORDSHIP, after reviewing the case at some length,
decided that there was not sufficient evidence adduced to
establish the liability of the defendants.
Mr. Sergeant CAANELL tendered a bill of exception, and,
in order to admit of its acceptance by the Court, a verdict
was taken for the defendants.

71111 NORTII•WESTICRN TRUNK RAILIVAT.....-BAIMEIt V.

LYNDON.
This was an action brought by Mr. C. Barker, the adver-
tising agent, to recover for work and labour done in adver-
tising the prospectus of a certain scheme called " The North-
Western Railway Trunk Company," of which the defendant
11 as a provisional director. The latter is a hardware manu-
facturer, residing at Birmingham.
Mr. Cockburn and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiffs,
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Kean for the defendants.
Mr. COCKBURN opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ife stated this scheme was projected in September, 1845, by

a person of the name of M. Brown, the friend of Mr. Gar-
bett, a solicitor, residing at Wellington, in Shropshire,
who was also connected with the Shropshire Mineral
line. It appeared that in the begining of October Mr. Gar-
bett and Mr. Bull were coming up to London to arrange to
attend a meeting of the provisional directors, and they hap-
pened to meet the defendant in the railway carriage. This
was the time when visions of premiums floated in the minds
of many, and a conversation having started between the
parties, it ended in the defendant consenting to become
a provisional director. Immediately after this a revised
prospectus was issued, in a proof of which his name appeared
incorrectly, and which he caused to be corrected. Subse-
quently he consented to take 150 shares, in virtue of
being a director, but the panic taking place, the
shares were not issued. Eventually an arrangement was
made to give up the line, and to meet the expenses gone to.
The defendant, as one of the directors, was written to, to
contribute his share of the expense; when he returned an
answer to the effect, that he had never given his
sanction to be a provisional director, and would
have nothing whatever to do with the matter. Under
these circumstances the plaintiff having gone to considerable
expense in advertising the scheme, and not being paid his
account, he selected the defendant as a solvent person, from
whom he could recover. The Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to call his witnesses.

Mr. Edmund Garbett, of Wellington, was called, and de-
posed that in 1845, he was engaged as solicitor in several
railway transactions. Among others, he was joint-so-
licitor to the North Western Truak Railway. He
recollected in October having met the defendant
in company with Mr. Bull, at the Birmingham
station. They all travelled in the same carriage.
and the conversation turned on this railway. Mr. Bull said
he was going to attend a meeting of the directors in London.
In the course of their conversation Mr. Bull said " Garbett,
you may as well put the name of Walter Lyndon in the list
of directors." The defendant said if Mr:Bull was in the
Company, he had no objection to joining the Company.
witness had a prospectus on him, a number of copies of which
had been struck off, and he wrote Mr. Lynden's name down
on it. He believed the defendant promised to attend the
meeting next day, but he did not. A Mr. Wylie was also
present, who likewise consented to become a provisional di-
rector. In pursuance of this, steps were taken by the witness
to have the names inserted in the prospectus. The defendant
asked when his name would appear, and witness replied that
it would appear in the morning in the London newspapers,
and in the country ones the week following. The shares of
the company had never been allotted; they were obliged to
fall back on those who had agreed to act as directors of the
Conpany.
The witness further deposed that the defendant had sent a
letter, stating his intention to byte 150 shares if allotted to
him, but that when the affairs of the company got unsatis-
factory he had sent another letter, denying he had ever con-
sented to be one of the provisional directors.
The cross-examination of the witness did not illicit any
material point.
James Stevens, the secretary of the Company, proved that
he had ordered the prospectuses of the company he adver-
tised through Mr. Charles Barker. He gave the orders ge-
nerally in writing. He was in the habit of causing sum-
monses and notices to the directors to be issued, and among
others Als. Lyndon was several times written to. The list
of names was made up from the printed prospectuses.
The written orders, authorising the insertion of the
advertisements of the scheme, were then put in, signed "I.
S te phens. "

Ali% Stephens, under examination, admitted the orders put
in to be in his handwriting, for which he quoted the resolu-
tions passed at the first meeting of the provisional com-
mittee, on the Gth October, 1845, as his general authority,
for the insertion of the advertisements, requesting all things
necessary for the advancement of the scheme to be done.
At a meeting of the 11th of October, 1845, the name of the
defendant, along with twenty-nine ethers, was added to the
list on the prospectus, by a resolution of the managing
committee, in the absence of the defendant. The witness
said he had a general authority to see that the matter was
properly advertised, except one occasion, when he was or-
dered to advertise as little in the Times as possible, on ac.
count of the opposition which that journal had evinced
against railways.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said, the books produced by this wit-
ness had come upon him by surprise, and he was not prepared
to go on with the case until he had an opportunity of
examining them.
The case was therefore postponed till to-morrow morning
when Mr. Sergeant Byles will proceed with the cross-exami-
nation of Mr. Stephens.

COURSE OF EXCH
Amsterdam ......C.F. 12 33,.

kNGE.-(TIIIS DAY'
Gibraltar.. • • ......
Leghorn .•. • • ... ••.. • • 30 45
Genoa •• • •• .. 25 85
Milan ••••••• • • • • • • •
Venice.. •••••.• • • • • . .
Naples .••• • • • • 40%
Palermo, per os ....... . 321
Lisbon .. . • • • • • • . 52%
Oporto .• .• • .•• • . • • 54%
Rio Janeiro ••• • • . • • 27

Ditto, at sight • • l2 )i
Rotterdam ...... 2U. 11 4
Antwerp .• 25 75
Llamburgh .... • • M.B. 13 834
Paris, 3 days' sight .. 25 40
Ditto, 3 months .. 25 75
Marseilles •••• • • • ....• 25 85
80uri1eanx......... 25 85
Frankfort OR Mains 120%
Petersburgh, 3 U 5.... • •
Berlin • • .. • •
Vienna, effec. fio .. •. • • 10 3
Trieste, ditto.... • lO 3
Madrid .... • •
Cadiz „, 36%
Barcelona •

Bahia ..............
Buenos Ayres . ..... • •
New York, 21 days' sight
Philadelphia .. • • •• • • • • ...........-
01 OF BVLLION, PEZ OZ.
Foreign Gold in bars.. £3 17 9
New Dollars ••• . • • 0 0 0
Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons 00 0
Silver in bars .. .... • • 50 %

,aturday evening last, a few
r. Ilia, discovered a telestwpic
tet is a faint nebulosity, with a
tre, though no
positive nucleus

A NEW COMET.—On SI
minutes aftur ni:e o'clock, MI
comet M Cepheus. The cum
slight condenzation in thcs ceul
is visible?