The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 13.
StIREWSBURY V. BLUNT AND OTHERS.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant HALCOMBE moved for a new trial in this
case, which was an action of tort, brought against the
Directors of the Wheal Brothers Mining Company, to re-
cover the amount of shares which the plaintiff was induced
to purchase in that concern, by the alleged fraudulent re-
presentations of the defendants. The jury found for the
defendants, and the Learned Sergeant contended that this
verdict was against the evidence, which, he said, had clearly
established the charge of false and fraudulent representa-
tion on the part of two defendants, Blount and Harrison.
Although the other Directors were not awaro of the false-
hood of the representations by which the plaintiff and the
public were imposed on, they were Habig for the damages,
inasmuch as they gave their sanction and authority to
those statements.

The COURT were of opinion that the Judge, Mr. Justice
Erskine, had rightly put it to the Jury to say whether the
evidence was sufficient, that the defendants knew at the time
when they published their prospectus, that the mine was
worthless. If they were not, they were entitled to a ver-
dict according to the decision in the great Scotch case of
Ilayeroft v. Creesy. The Court would give no opinion
on the point of law, as to the responsibility of the Direc-
tors for the truth of their representations, because the ques-
tion had been put to the Jury, whether the plaintiff had
been induced to buy shares in August 1836, in conse-
quence of the representations made by the defendants in
the April before ; and the Jury had found in the negative.
Nor did there seem to be any reason for impugning that
verdict, for it was plain that the decline of the price at the
time when the plaintiff pnrchased, was sufficient to inform
him that the golden promises of the prospectus had not
been realized. Their Lordships therefore refused the rule.

SECONDARIES' COURT, JA.v. 15.
BILL V. INNES.

In this case Mr. MATTUEWS appeared for the plaintiff,
a solicitor ; and Mr. FORTESCUE appeared for the defend.
ant, who is brother-in-law of Mr. Stockdalc.

The action was brought to recover 7/. 3s. 6d., for money
lent to the defendant, to enable him to release Stockdale
out of the custody of the Sheriffs of London.
William Chapman, a Sheriff's Officer's assistant, esta-
blished the plaintit's case.

Mr. FOTESCUE contended that the only undertaking.
Mr. Trines gave Mr. Hill to re-pay the money was of
a collateral nature, inasmuch as he promised to pay if
Stockdale did not. Stockdale, however, it had not been
proved, had ever been applied to, and that even
if the undertaking was of a positive character, the
Statute of Frauds required that it should be made in writ-
ing. He (Mr. Fortescue) would be able to show that there
was a collateral undertaking in writing given, which he
submitted would at once put the plaintiff out of Court.
The Learned Counsel then commenced reading a docu-
ment, but was stopped by
The SECONDARY inquiring how the paper could get
into the defendant's possession, if it was given to the
plaintiff? Unless the defendant could prove that it had
been in the plaintiff's possession, he could not be affected
by

- Mr. FORTESCUE, not being prepared with proof of such
a description, he proceeded to argue that the Jury must
be fully satisfied that the money passed from Mr. Hill into
the defendant's own hands, and that it was a bona fide loan,
to enable the plaintiff to recover.
The Learned SECONDARY summed up, and the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 71. 3s. 61
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.