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

THE PERTH AND DRUMMOND PEERAGE.

Witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants
in this peerage; the further com4detstion of which was
adjcurned to Tuesday, the 11th of May, when the
counsel for the claimant will sum up his case upon the
cTidenee adduced on his behalf.

GAHATT V. MALONE.

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

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April2o.
TIIIC PARCEL POST COMPANY.—HOWARD V. HILL.
Mr. Pashley and Mr. Henniker conducted the case for the
°taint iff, and Mr. Hurafrey with Mr. Lush appeared for the
defendant.
Mr. PASIILTY, 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 board 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 ElephauLssalad Castle. Well,
these horses must be fed, and, accordiegly, they having been
bought on the 6th of January, on the succeeding day the
superintendent, Mr. Smythe, bought a eleantity of hay,
clover, and straw of the plaintiff, at.tlse 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 571. 10s., and then, not obtaining
payment on the Ist of March as agreed upon, Ise commenced
the present action. But, observed tbs.' Learned Counsel, he
should not merely prove that the defendant had been pre-
sent at the meetings of the board, bistthat he• had written a
letter begging to be put, upon tbe a horse committee," and
that he had likewise been a member of *sat termed the
" executive committee." Moreover, of such importance had
the defendant been in the coticern,that he had actually ob-
tained permission from his brethren, when it might occur
rbeosaeerdt hhiimm-.
self, he huelawt
hasisuhnreabillieerto,ehgeoultdo tahattomtteetfoirng:modf tiheep
Then, it had not been an uncommon circumstance for him to
carriage up
ereeshorsese
lo n g an tg t hoe fire I e
0,
mapaade
yt o. u
If he
hin
e
ptp hrueetli
ha hisce
seoewttnhh the horses
he felt that 119 must at once carry a
verdict for the plaintiff.
`Sr. E. T. Gough was the first 'witness. He said—l was
the secretary to the Parcel Post Company, and the resident
manager. The office was 67, Fleet-street. It was conducted
by a board of directors, of whom the defendant was one.
The others were the Hon. A. F. Nerkeley, Mr. Ashley, Mr.
Owen, Mr. Ancrum, and Mr. Parry. All of these gentlemen
were in the habit of attending the meetings, though Mr.
Berkeley and the defendant were sotuetimes represented by
their brothers, wile acted for them. Tl defendant attended
himself on several occasions. The Oonipany Was formed in
last October, and the meetings wee ,-held constantly from
that time to 'Tannery or February.
Vreilglt ed my office on
the Ist of February, and soon altar 'the company was
abandoned or given up. The object of the Company was
part, to convey parcels from one pa of the town to another,
or within .five miles. The onsto' was to have been
30,0001., divided into 6,000 s sharet, of 61. each. Mr.
Smythe was appointed the supprintOndent, and his 'duty
was' to purchase the horeess Ass, povide the food, and
what was requisite for them, and, in fact,' le attend to that
eontfe roersetedh
pci nuo
mr
department. The original, resolution of his appointment
and his duties was written by the 'ehairman and banded to
pt
oe
s,e defendant'siis,
whether
he t
hberro brother, was,
ttbgietisg maken.
The original book I gave at his request to Mr. Arthur Hill,
to no
e ,p3r for
reutcwhe
aet,h,3e,,tb purposeoookri, expressed a wish to look at it.
Mr. PASRLNY—We 'Ave served the defendant with notice
Mr. Baron ALDERIQN--
h meeting when
Smythe minute-book.
Cross-examined—l was in ,the office from the commence-
ment to the Ist of February, and then I resigned because I
dwefhneTnhdi:enn,tthe
wasueasttitene for you now to
found I was left by the directors, and seeing the necessary
result—namely, that as they had not left any money to pay
the wages of the different then, I might get into a difficulty
—I resigned to protect myself. The number of shares
actually paid upon was about 400 out or the 6,000. There
Laughter.)
were applications for as many as 43,000, but only 400 were
paid upon.
proAllirts.,B4aoroontoA43l.:7o.z—That is I suppose the estimated
difference of value as between possession of and anticipated
Cross-examination resumed—The directors were to pay a
deposit of 7s. per share, whilst the public were to pay 21.105.
per share. There were store, however (as the reporter un-
derstood), who were to
pay a deposit of 11.
Mr.- Baron ALDERSON—Why 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 ALDEasosr--,They did not tell the unhappy
public, I dare say, that the directors were only to pay 73.„
whilst they were to pay 21. 10s. deposit, did they? Witness—
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 superin-
tendent. There was an instruction given to the superinten-
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 ap.
dent to buy corn, hay, straw, &c.,
that was necessary for the
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

sathatt as-corn was then
the ten direciors there.
Re-examined—The :defendant in a conversation with me
dhefesnedsavrntoulddesibreedgamtneedtohydiusZtga Itahcee. s u
pTehre.
horses
was aware tbat greavetrYecodtim, yh.ini.Tildfetedhe soufptire-
beeaLstenitnionitsofp
intendent to the subject. This 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. I n our
keep calculation we put down the expense of the
of each
horse at 1/. per Week.
A letter was then put in, and read, from the defendant to
the witness, dated December 22, 1846, asking him tosuggest
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 fiom 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 ,
and bad frequent conversations with him about the hor
ses
and the nettre of their provender. The truth was, that the
defendant had knO'n what be 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
clover aad hay of the plaintiff, and at the same time handed
him the prospectus, pointing out the names of the responsible
parties--namely, the directors, who would be answerable for
any orders he might give. On the following day the plaintiff
called at the office, and arranged the terms on which he was
to supply the provender, and when he was to be paid. The
agreement was that he was to be paid cash the first of each
month. The defendant would often come to the stables and
take one of the horses for his own use. That, however, was
prior to the company getting into work.
Cross-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
we of the meet-
, ings I beeides, he had had long conversations I.h him at his
I office, when .'"' had advised that he should use beans instead
rnished mo
.him with on to buy
(if corn. The board haul •
the horses. That was a cash tranSaCti9Pl but nearly" every
other matter WAS still unpaid.
tiff __
then
to the plain produced an afliday.: t'
Te attorney upon him b
andh a paper which had been served y. the attorney
for the defendant, wherein the latter pleaded in abatement
that he was liable only in conjunction with other persons.
Dlr. Baron Awartson—lf he were liable with others, Mr.
Lush, surely he was liable alone.
la' tiff
A verdict was then taken for
the p in, for the amount
sought.

PREROGATIVE COURT, April 20,
(Before Sir H. Jim.= I'm.)
WAS.ING V. wAnniG.
The learner} judge dstliNifed Iltetiirke ill 416 Mel lidzicb