The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMM ON PLEAS, Feb. 9.

(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.)
THE LEEDS, FLEETWOOD, AND 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 Channell and Mr. Parry were for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Bramwell for the
defence.
The sum sought to be recovered was about 2,4007., 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 pablished 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 had 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 CHANNELL 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 CHANNELL tendered a bill of exception, and,
in order to admit of its acceptance by the Court, a verdict
was taken for the defendants.

ERIC NORTH-WESTERN TRUNK RAILWAY.-BARKER_ V.
LYNDON.
_

This was an action brought by Mr. C. Barker, the aflver..
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
was 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. Keau for the defendants.
Mr. COCKBURN opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
He stated this schema was projected in September, 1845, by
a person of the name of Mr. 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 Trunk 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 bad a prospectus onihim, a number of copies of which
had been struck off, and he wrote Mr. Lyndon'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 the'next 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
company.
The witness further deposed that the defendant had sent a
letter, stating his intention to take 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 to be 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
o f others
namesa l rw.
aLyndonsmede
uwas f severalrom
the timespri nt e dwpr irtetsepnecttou.s .
The written orders, authorising the insertion of the
advertisements of the scheme, were then put in, signed "I-
Stephens." The list
Mr. 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 6th 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 others, 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 on 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.

BAIL COURT, Feb. 9.
(Sit tings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice DEntAN.)
ANDREWS V. LORD LYNDHURST.
In this case, Mr. Andrews, formerly a prisoner in the
Queen's Bench, moved for a rule to show cause why Lord
Lyndhurst should not pay over a fine of 5001. for refusing to
grant a writ of habeas corpus while in possession of the [,Teat
seal. The penalty was sought to be enforced under an old
Act of Parliament.

The defendant had entered a demurrer.
Lord DIwMAN observed, that it would not be necessary
for Mr. Cowling, on the part of the defendant, to make any
observations, as the Court had already come to a decision pn
the matter. In the opinion of the Court, the penalty could
only be recovered in the event of the Chancellor refusing
grant a writ of habeas corpus in a case of felony or treason;
it did not apply to the case of a prisoner confined for debt.
The demurrer put in by the defendant would, therefore, be
con ,idered valid by the Court.
The effect of this decision is literally a judgment altogether
in favour of Lord Lyndhurst.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
CHESTER CUP.
The actual acceptances for the above event are 107, 3fY
Mary and Smuggler Bill having been left in by an
over-
sight.
NEW QUEEN'S PLATE ARTICLES.
The following rules have just been issued for the future
i
observance of owners and riders of all such horses as shall run
for her Majesty's Plates:— for any of
I. Every horse, mare, or gelding that runneth
the said plates shall carry the weight and run the distance
appointed in the schedule hereunto anne.xed.
or geldin
11. Every person that putteth in a horse, mare, g
for any of the said plates, shall enter the same with the name
scription of the horse, according
of the owner, and the age, name, pedigree. or sufficient de-
to the rule of the Jockey
Club regarding nominations, at the time and place appointed
by the steward or stewards of the races at which such plate
is to be run for.
111. Horses that run for any of her Majesty's plates shall
start at the time appointed by the steward or stewards of
the races at which such plate is run for.
IV. Each horse's, mare's, or gelding's place as he or they
come by the ending •post shall be determined by the judge
appointed by the steward or stewards of the races at the place
where the said plate is run for.
V. Every rider shall, immediately after each heat be run,
be obliged to come to the usual place of weighing with his
horse, mare, or gelding, then and there to alight, and not be-
fore, and there to weigh to the satisfaction of the person sp..
pointed for that purpose.
VI. And in case of neglect or refusal thereof, such owners
and riders shall be immediately declared incapable of running
ohrerreiadfitnegnany more for this or any of her Majesty's plates
VII. Every horse, mare, or gelding, that runneth on the
wrong side of the post or flags, or is distanced in ally of the
huts,run
sihnablleahtasv,etnbe osbheariee, ofmtharees, or gelding that winnethaid plates, nor be suffered
to run any more.
VIII. When any of her Majesty's plates are appointed to
be
any two heats winneth the plate, but if three several horses,
mares, or geldings win each of them a heat, then those three
and only they to run a fourth heat, and the horse, mare
gelding that winneth the fourth heat shall have the plate or
IX. When the age or qualification of a horse entered*
for
any of her Majesty's Plates shall be objected to,
either
before
or after running, the stewards of the races at which
plate is run for shall have the power to order an examination'such
of the horse's mouth by competent persons, and to call
such evidence as they may require, and their decisionfor all
be final unless they shall think fit to refer the m shall
stewards of the Jockey Club for the time being, in matter to the
the decision of the said stewards of the Jockey
in which case
final. A certificate shall not be granted to any horseYClub shall be
to until the question of his qualification shall objected
the manner herein prescribed. be decided in
X. And in case any difference shall arise i n, or
respecting any matters not hereinbefore providi_!d ru
-n--in-''
the interpretation of these her Majesty's or a for, or as to
shall be determined by the Master of the Horse)erA, the same
person or persons as he shall appoint. or by such

CAUTION TO TRADESMEN.-011 Saturday list, the
6th instant, a gentleman, in appearance, called at Mr. Ed-
munds's shop, in Lowndes-street, Belgrave-square, and
ordered a pair of gloves, and two satin scarfs, value 355.
The gloves (value 25.) he took with him, and ordered the
scarfs to be sent to 49, Belgrave-square, and all should be
paid for; but on taking them as directed no such person re-
sided there.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 9.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
The Earl of STRADBROKE presented several peti-
tions against the Poor Removal Bill.
CHELSEA PENSIONER'S BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
PAROCHIAL FUNDS.
Lord STANLEY said, he wished to present to their
Lordships a petition of a somewhat novel character,
though_ it was of no small importance, particularly as
affecting the spiritual interests of the country, but more
especially that part of it which constituted the great and
important town of Manchester. It was the petition of
the churchwardens of the parish of -Manchester,
who were elected annually by the whole of the
parishioners, numbering upwards of 400,000 persons.
The petitioners complained that the parochial funds,
amounting to upwards of 5,0001. a year, were received
by the dean and wardens of the Collegiate Church of
Manchester, although these functionaries did not
perform the duties of rectors of the parish, or had
in any way the care of the souls of the parish,
and were in point of fact non-residents of the district.
It was a case which, to use the language of the peti-
tioners, was likely to reflect great discredit and scandal
upon the Church. The town of Manchester was origi-
nally a rectory, founded in the year 1251, of the
annual value of 531. 6s. Bd. It continued so until the
year 1451, when a collegiate church was founded,
the parish having grown to so large an ex •
tent, and the funds of the existing rectory were
appropriated by the church of the parishioners
to the support of the new collegiate church, and
by a charter granted in the 9th year of the reign of Henry
V. At that period the funds amounted to 250 marks a year.
Even at that time great complaints were made of the ap-
propriation of the funds by non-resident rectors; the same
cause of complaint remained unchecked for many years.
After the foundation of the college, and during the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, another charter was passed for the
regulation and the enforcement of rectoral residences.
In the reign of Charles I. a third charter was passed
for the same object, which charter remained in force
at the present period. It was expressly provided in
the charter that the rectors receiving the funds of the
college should be perpetua residere et victitare, the peti-
tioners in their petition had set forth the words of the
charter as perpetua residere et visitare—tbeir Lordships
would see that the original words had even more force
than the words used by the petitioners. Under such a
charter, therefore, it would be easily seen how
well founded were the complaints of the petitioners.
At the time when the charter was granted the
salary for the warden was 751. per year, and of each of
the fellows 35/, while at present the revenues amounted
to 6,000/. Now, with all respect to the Dean and Chapter
of Manchester, he could not understand how, in the face

of the provisions of the original charter, any body of men,
with conscientious feelings and religious convictions,

and he believed the Dean tied Chapter were so influenced
that they could satisfy their consciences to receive
6,0001., the amount of the rectorial revenues of that
parish, and leave the population, consisting of 400,000
individuals, without spiritual provision, except what
was afforded by the district churches. When
this provision was originally made the popu-
lation of Manchester was not more than 20,000 per-
sons, and it was now 400,000. Then, besides the col-
legiate church, there were nine other chapels of ease where
service was performed; at present there were forty-nine
district churches, besides separate endowments, and the
clergy of these churches were paid by fees, one portion of
which went to the district churches, and the other to the
mother church. The rectorial tithes then were received
by the Dean and Chapter, and he.thought it a matter of
surprise that while the revenues were claimed the cor-
responding duties of visitation and care of s.ails were
not discharged, and that exemption was sought from
residence, and the other duties connected with the
spiritual care of the people. One point appeared
to him strange—that while discretion was given
to the dean and fellows to augment the salary of the
rector, 171. 10s. was the only salary allowed him out of
the rectorial revenues, although the whole duty, which
wars so much increased, had devolved upon him.
The Dean and Chapter contend that under the statute
they are exempt from the rates; that they have no cure
of souls; that they fulfil the obligation of the duties by
being mulct Is. 4d. a day in the case of their absei.ce,
and chat they are not bound to perform any other spiritual
duties. He thought their Lordships would concur wi h
him that such a course of procedure was unwarranted in
law, and that the case was one which deserved their
most serious attention. Ile could not understand why
the dean and canons, whilst they performed the colle-
giate services in the collegiate church, and received the
usual remuneration, forgot that that church
was the parochial one ; and why they were
to make use of their corporate character to
deprive the population of the spiritual ad-
vantage to which they considered they were entitled, in
consequence of the 5,0001. paid to them for that purpose.
They prayed their Lordship,:, before the establishment
of the see, to ascertain that there was ample security for
the application of the whole rectoral income to the
efficient ecclesiastical superintendence of the parish of
Manchester.

Lord BROUGHAM said the Noble Lord had stated
a very ordinary case. The right to receive the funds,
of course, depended upon the legal construction of the
charter, and the evil complained of could only be re-
medied by some legislative enactment.
The Marquis of LANSDOW.NE would not offer
any opinion further upon the 'construction or the in-
tention of the charter, but the petition- having become
known in Manchester, the Dean and Chapter had for-
warded to him a letter upon the subject, which the
Dean wished to have read to the House. (The Noble
Marquis then read the letter.) It stated that the writer
simply enjoyed the rights possessed by his predecessors,
but still he had never made any claim to them. It was
decided by the legal tribunals that the privileges were
attached to his office. Neither he nor the canons had
any authority to visit in the parish. The canons
-had even exceeded their duty in their endeavours
to improve the moral an spiritual education of
the
people. He could only say, with reference to the
write-eO, that letter, that no person had contributed
more than be had to the advance of the great cause of
education. He regretted the absence of the reverend
prelate of the diocese, who, in consequence of indisposie
tion, was unable to attend, or to afford any information
to their Lordships upon the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM quite concurred in the opinion
expressed by the Noble Marquis upon the talents and
abilities of the writer of that letter, his respected and
reverend vi Herbert.
Lord Rev. W.
cOTTENHAM would not enter into the ques-
tion whether the duties enjoined by the charter were
performed or not, because there was no information on
that subject. The statements made with regard to this
bad been very contradictory. The charter said that
peculiar duties were to be discharged ; but if these du-
ties were performed, there did not appear to be constant
residence enjoined. If they omitted to do their duty,
there was in this respect, he apprehended no distinction
between them and the other large corporations of this
country. In Henry the Eighth's time, when monaste-
ries and religious houses were dissolved, the rectories
which formed a part of them fell to the ground, and be-
came the property of private individuals. Others of
them temained ecclesiastical corporations, and were in
appropriate rectories to the present time. In the neigh-
bourhood where he lived there were foul contiguous
parishes, the duties of which were discharged by a Dean
and Chapter. The revenues of each of these parishes
amounted to na less than 8001. a year, while the salary
of the clergyman, who did the spiritual duty, was only
401. He was eot able to say what was the amount of
the revenues of the other parishes ; but they were, no
doubt, in the same proportion. The law gave the Dean
and Chapter that discretion, for it presumed they would
be so disposed to superintend the spiritual instruction
of the people as to render any cognizance of the law un-
necessary. They had the law on their side, and from
the hest judgment he could form on the matter they
were as well entitled to the tithes and rectorial revenues
as their Lordships were to their estates.
Lord CAMPBELL wished to make a single observa-
tion. There was a difference between what was called
appropriate tithes which were held, as lawyers called it,
in lay fee, and ecclesiastical property to which duties
were annexed. He differed with his Noble Friend with
regard to the point of residence. These duties as: en-
joined by the old charters made residence necessary,
and there was a penalty annexed if the duty so enjoined
was not observed. Now, that penalty supposed a duty
to be performed, the non-observance of which was
visited with the penalty. Now, it appeared to him from
the lucid statement of the Noble Lord who introduced
the subject, thata duty was imposed and that it should
be performed. Wo blame, however, should be attached
he believed to the parties involved in the petition, to
whom the cause of religion and education was so much
indebted.

Lord COTTENHAM disclaimed expressing any
opinion as to whether the duties were performed or not.
He expressly- avoided making any reference to that.
His observations were confined to the property in a
legal point of view.
Lord STANLEY would not presume to deal with the
legal question, but he could not help urging upon their
Lordships that 3 and 4 Will. IV., c. 113, rated pro-
perty, like that in question, as rectorial property. What
he wished to urge upon their Lordships was, whether
the requirements of the charter were satisfied, and
whether they acted the part of good citizens, by the
way in which they performed their duties. It was for
their Lordships and the country to consider whether
this was a state of the law which ought to be ccnsidered
incapable of a remedy. Were the inhabitants of Man-
chester, and other populous places, who had levied
upon them 5,000/. or 6,0001. a year for the purposes of
spiritual instruction, to be deprived of that spiritual'
instruction, and to see the funds placed in the hands
of persons who did not recognise any corresponding
claim upon them, but to expend them as they thought
proper, and where they thought proper, without fulfilling
the duties for which the funds were raised, and to see
them liable, in addition, to have them taken up by the
ecclesiastical commissioners, and diverted from rectorial
to chapter purposes. They were anxious to see the
matter properly arranged before the final establishment
of the see. They said the fucds were rectorial funds,
and that they were improperly applied. Ile was
sur-
prised that they should avail themselves of a technicality
in the charter to evade the proper performance of their
duties.
Lord BROUGIIA M said that he had seen in the blue
book two letters, which complained that Captain Wynne,
one of the superintendents of the relief rate, had im-
posed upon its funds two persons who were in the clear
receipt of 601 a-year each, as well as several other per-
sons who were in easy circumstances. He had heard
from private sources, from persons who were interested
neither one way or the other in the matter, and who
only know Captain Wynne in his public capacity, the
highest testimonies to his private character. That