The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATUR i)Ay EVENING, JANUARY 16, 1847.

1..11 1 11,
"W :24

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

FISHER V. OLIVER.
The arguments in this case having been conluded
to-day,
His LORDSHIP said he had not the least hesitation in
stating that he could not interfere in this matter unless
the plaintiff underto)k to establish the validity of his
patent at law. That undertaking being made, he should
read the affidavits, and consider the propriety of g-ant-
ing an injunction to restrain the defendants from acting
so as to infringe the patent until the issue at law should
have been tried.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court took the Crown paper to-day. No cases
came on for argument possessing any claim to public
interest.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.-PARROTT

V. FREE.
This was an action to recover the sum of 1,5001. due
by the defendant to the plaintiff for certain newspaper
advertisements inserted, and for work and labour done.
Mr. Keene appeared for the defence, and Messrs.
Humphries and Wordsworth for the plaintiff.
Mr. HUMPHRIES stated that the plaintiff in this case
was a newspaper agent, and the defendant, the Hon.
Percy E. Freke, was a gentleman of fortnne, and the son
of Lord Carberry. The question of his liability (lid not
rest upon the mere fact of his name appearing on the
provisional committee of any railway, but on other facts
which he should prove, and which would leave no doubt
on the minds of the jury that their verdict ought to give
the plaintiff his claim.
The Learned Counsel then called
The Secretary of the London, Birmingham, and
Buckingham Railway Company, who stated that the
first meeting of the promoters of the company took
place in September, 1845. The defendant was present,
and was, with others, made a member of the provisional
committee. At a subsequent meeting, on the 10th of
October, the defendant was present. On the 3d of
October, a resolution that the company should be adver-
tised, was passed and acted on. The defendant was not
present. Papers, containing these advertisements, were
laid on the table on all occasions. The defendant was
often present. On the 24th of September the solicitors
to the company were empowered to solicit the co-opera-
tion of gentlemen, and to publish their names, " should
it be deemed necessary." The defendant was summoned
to attend at all the meetings of the oompany; at least,
witness put a letter, containning a summons, into the
post-office for him before each meeting. On the 3d of
October the name of the company was altered, and
several names were added to the provisional committee.
By Mr. Justice ERLE—The name of the company was
changed from and after the 3d of October.
Mr. KEENE objected to any evidence being given of
facts which took place while the defendant was absent.
Mr. Justice ERLE said that there was evidence that,
though the defendant was not present when certain re-
solutions were made, he was present when they were
acted upon, and thus identified himself with them by
confirming acts done in his absence. This fact was,
therefore, admissible as evidence of his consenting that
the company should be extensively advertised.
A resolution of the 3d of October, authorising the
solicitors to publish the prospectus of thei company, was
then read.
Examination continued —By the instructions of
Messrs. Forbes and Drake he took some prospectuses to
Mr. Parrott. Witness directed him to advertise in the
Times, Herald, Morning Chronicle, and The Sun, besides
several of the local papers. Mr. Parrott sent in an ac-
count in the month of February. It was laid on the
table for further consideration, but no objection was made
as to its incorrectness.
Mr. Pritchard, of the Joint-Stock Company Regis-
tration Office, produced the registration of the London,
Birmingham, and Buckinghamshire Railway Company.
Mr. Freke's name is there. The company was first
registered on the 23d of September, and afterwards on
the 29th of October. Has Mr. Freke's written consent
to be on the committee.
The secretary identified the handwriting as that of
Mr. Freke.

Mr. PRITCHARD said that the first prospectus ever re-
gistered contained the name of Colonel Freke.
Mr. KEENE objected to any evidence of proceedings
prior to the 29th of October being given. As it was
only on that day Colonel Freke gave his written con-
sent, he could not be made liable for anything before
that period.
The Secretary of the company was then recalled and
cross-examined by Mr. KEENE—OnIy knows Mr. Par-
rott as the advertising agent. Shares in the company
were allotted, but cannot say whether Mr. Parrott had,
or applied for any. First saw Mr. Freke on the
24th of September. He was introduced by Mr. Drake,
and afterwards gave his name to witness. Has not any
of the original prospectuses taken to the advertising
agents.
Mr. Win. Grogan, clerk to the plaintiff, stated that his
employer resided i❑ Alderman's-walk. The advertise
ments mentioned in the account produced were inserted
from time to time. The advertisements are inserted in
the newspapers produced.
Mr. KEENE objected to them unless the original ad-
vertisements sent to the newspaper-offices were produced.
Examination continued—The charges made are quite
reasonable. The amount of the bill is 1,5581. 178.2 d.
The Secretary was here recalled by Mr. KEENE—Ho
stated that there was a managing committee appointed
on the sth of November. Colonel Freke was not a
member of it. It was appointed by the provisional
committee. •
Mr. RUNTIMES stated, that in order to obviate the
objection to the managing committee, he would ask for
nothing which was inserted after the sth of November.
All the charges after that date should be struck. out.
Mr. Thomas proved the payment by Mr. Parrott of
various large sums for the insertion of advertisements.
All the advertisements charged were paid for by Mr.
Parrott.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. KEENE submitted that there was no proof of any
one fact to render ColoneliFreke liable. Beside 3, there
had been no proof given that the prospectus had ever
been advertised. He wished that the original prospectus
sent to the newspaper-offices should be produced; that
the fact of its being printed should be proved, and the
authorised copies of the newspapers from Somerset
House. Every piece of paper covered with print could
not be proved to be the Times for a legal purpose. He re-
quired that the paper produced should be legally proved
to be a newspaper. He also wished that the advertisement
should be proved to be in conformity with the registered
prospectus.

Tile secretary was then re-called, and he proved that
the registered prospectus and the printed advertise-
ments %sere in conformity with each other.
Mr. Justice DILE inquired if Mr. Keene would admit
the conformity of the prospectus and advertisements? ,
Mr. KEENE said he could not.
Mr. Justice ERLE then re called Mr. Pritchard, who
proved that certain prospectuses were registered from
time to time.

Mr. KEENE said that he would admit that there was a
conformity between the prospectus produced and the ad-
vertisements in the the printed documents produced, and
purporting to be newspapers. He objected that the
prospectus registered and published in the advertisement
was not the one authorised by the committee. He also
objected that the papers produced were not proved
to be newspapers.
Mr. Justice ERLE—You have not got the printer to
prove that the papers are copies of those printed at
certain dates.
Mr. HUMPHRIES—No, my Lord.
Mr. Thomas then produced a copy of the Morning
Herald, which he stated came from the Herald office, and
a copy of The Sun from the Stamp-office. The papers
produced by the name of the Times are papers published
and circulated by that name ou the dates named on
them.

By Mr. KEENE—Applied for a copy of The Sun in
writing. Has not got the leti er.
Mr. KEENE then objected to the production of the
paper.
Mr. Grogan recalled, and examined by Mr. Justice
ERLE—saw the secretary of the company deliver cer-
tain prospectuses to Mr. Parrott. He has also given
them to witness. Witness gave these prospectuses to
Mr. Thomas for insertion in the newspapers. Gave the
identical ones brought by the screwy to Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Justice ERLE then stated his opinion that there
was a case to go to the jury. It was, however, subject
to the objections of Mr. Keene.
Mr. KEENE then proceeded to address the jury, and
contended that there was no proof that the defendant
was present at any meeting which authorised the in-
sertion of advertisements. The resolution of the 24th
of September did not authorise the expenditure of one
farthing. of money, as it only authorised the inviting of
the co-operation of certain gentlemen, " and to publish
their names if necessary;" and therefore all the work
done by the plaintiff had been done without competent
authority—at any rate no assent by the defendant was
proved.
Mr. Justice ERLE then summed up the evidence, and
remarked that there could be no doubt that Mr.
Parrott did cause the advertisements of the com-
pany to be inserted in the newspapers, and
that he had paid for them to a much larger extent
than the sum which he sought would cover. The
Learned Counsel for the defence had raised aolumber of
objections, for which he had apologised to the jury, but
it was his bounden duty to protect his client in every
way, and he had shown considerable learning and inge-
nuity in doing so. The question which was mainly for
their consideration was, whether the defendant bad
given sufficient authority to the provisional committee
to act in his absence. The mere fact of his being on the
provisional committee list would not render him liable,
but on the 24th of September a resolution was passed in
the defendant's presence, which would necessarily incur
the expense of advertising and the costs of the solicitor.
The defendant had in this case not been merely a dor-
mant committeeman, but he acted with the rest, and
therefore as being a member of a body, uniting to act
for one purpose, he was to a certain extent liable. The
Learned Judge then recapitulated the evidence briefly,
and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 1,1001.

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

BIDDER V. FITZGERALD.

In this cause, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, at the last sittings at Westminster, as an tu,de-
fended cause, thejury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was a country solicitor, and brought his
action to recover a sum of money, alleged to he due to
him for professional services rendered on behalf of the
Birmingham and Daventry Junction Railway, of which
the defendant was one of
the provisional committee. At
the time of the jury giving in their verdict the Lord