The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-26 00:00:00

LA.W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb.2s.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice ERLE and a
Special Jury.)
NEWTON AND ANOTHER V. BELCIIEL-TIIE OXFORD

AND SALISBURY DIRECT RAILWAY.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Newton and Co.,
the advertising agents, to recover upwards of 4,6001. for work
and labour done in advertising the prospectuses, &c., of the
Oxford and Salisbury Direct Railway Company, of which
the defendant was a provisional director, and a member of
the committee of management.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Ball were for the plaintiffs ; Sir F.
Thesiger and Mr. Brown for the defence.
Mr. CROWDER opened the case at some length, detailing
the facts which he intended to prove in evidence. He said
the case was different from the ordinary cases of provisional
directors, inasmuch as he would prove that the defendant had
taken an active part in the management of the concern, and
had been a party to incurring the present debt.
Robert Lucas, an attorney, deposed that in 1845 he was
one of the promoters of a line from Oxford to SalLibur).
The first project was proposed from Bicester through Hun.-
gerford to Salisbury, which was registered on the 3d of S_ pe -
tember. About the 10th of September he called on Mr.
Belcher, at Abingdon. The defendant was mayor of that town
at the time. Witness explained the project, and the defend-
ant objected to it, on the ground that the line did not touch
Abingdon in its route. In consequence of the conversation that
took place witness had the project re-registered so as to
take in Abingdon. It then was to proceed from Oxford to
Abingdon, and thence to Hungerford and Salisbury. It was
brought out in this altered form. Afterwards wtess called
on the defendant at Abingdon, and was received very po-
litely. The alteration was explained, and the defendant
promised to give the scheme all the support in
his power. Subsequently a meeting of the gentlemen
favourable to the line was held on the sth of October. It
was a meeting, as witness understood, of the provisional
directors. The means of carrying out the project were dis-
cussed, and witness believed the publication of the project
was mentioned. Mr. Belcher took part in the dis-
cussion. A committee of management was also
talked off. Mr. Belcher was named as one of the com-
mittee of management, and he accepted the appointment.
Witness was present after this at several meetings of the
committee of management at the offices in Moorgate-street,
at which he saw the defendant present. At the first meeting
he was present at a number of prospectuses were produced,
setting forth the advantages of the line. The prospectus was
similar to the one produced in court. Witness had often
seen newspapers at the company's offices containing the pros-
pectuses of the company.
Cross-examined—He did not recollect the defendant say-
ing at the first meeting that he would only
notconser to act as
a promoter of the line on condition ofhe ng putto
any expense. Witness had been concerned with several
other schemes as well as this. With respect to the ad-
vertising, perhaps 5001. would do it well now, but at
that time the papers, especially the country ones,
charged much more than now. The present scheme
was advertised in many papers that were now de-
funct—in the Railway 13ell, the Railway Critic, the Share.
holder, the Railway Telegraph, the Railway King, the Railway
Standard, the Railway Mail, and the Stock Exchange Gazette.
All these had ceased to exist, and were papers, he believed,
which did not circulate much.
from the Registration-office, produced the George Dean,
register of the company, with the names of the promoters
attached.
George Preston deposed that he was one of the solicitors
of the company. Ho had an interview with the defendant on
the Bth ~ft),:t )ber, and ia c,Atrets..itt,,“ v. hien they had
together, Mr. Belcher agreed to do all he could to promote it

as one of the committee. On the 15th of the same month a
meeting was held at the London Coffee-house, at which Air.
Belcher was present. The latter gentleman was named on
the acting committee, and he consented. On the same
afternoon a meeting of the acting committee took
place, at which it was resolved to borrow, if
possible, 3,0001. from one of the banks to forward
the interests of the company. Another meeting
of the acting committee was held on Saturday following, the
18th. Mr. Belcher was present. The deputation to the
bank reported that the money would be advanced, if the
acting committee would give a guarantee. The defendant,
as one of the committee, did not object to do so, and he along
with the others present signed the guarantee.
The guarantee was here produced and put in. It was
signed among others by the defendant. After this time Mr.
Belcher attended several meetings of the managing com-
mittee, and took an active part in the proceedings. Witness
had seen him at meetings as late as March or April last.
Several orders given on behalf of the acting committee to
the plaintiffs to insert advertisements in the London and
country newspapers were next put in and proved; as was
also their reception by the plaintiffs' clerk.
Gentlemen from the Times, Chronicle, Hera'd, Sun, Post,
Advertiser, Gler,e, Standard, and other newspapers proved tl.e
insertion of the advertisements claimed for, in the pews-
papers they represented, with the prices charged in each case.
Evidence was also given of the advertisements inserted in
the country newspapers.
This was the case for the plaintiff..
Sir F. Tnestacn having replied at some length,
The jury returned a verdict that the defendant was liable
for the debts since the 15th October, the time at which he
consented to act as provisional committeeman.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
A Court was held immediately after the committee of the
whole Court was broke up. There was a large attendance of
aldermen as well as of commoners.

When the minutes of the last Court were read, an addition
was suggested by Mr. WIRE, which was agreed to by the
Court, and accordingly made in the minute-book. It ap-
peared that the minutes had been correctly, as far as they
went, recorded, but that they had been inadequately de-
tailed. The addition was considered as insignificant, except
as regards the principle, and the existing disagreement be-
tween the Lord ➢layor and the great body of the members.
Mr. WIFE, when it was proved that the pressure of bu-,
siness which related to the election of officers (and no other
business), be proceeded with, rose to state his reasons for
allowing the election of the officers to take precedence of all
other matters.

Alderman SIDNEY said, that if Mr. Wire's reasons were
listened to, the demand of every other member to be heard
on the same subject could not be rejected.
Mr. Wins said he had no notion of obstructing the public
business, and would not give any person a pretence that such
was his intention. He consented to the precedence of the
election, relying'upon the independent and honourable sup-
port of the court in adopting such steps as would put them
in a right position, by going to Parliament.—•(Cheers.)
The CHAMBERLAth gave in his list of affidavits, for the
freedom of the city-; amongst them were three or four per-
sons in small. reta►l businesses.

Mr. Wats again called the attention of the court to what
he considered to be the disgraceful fact, that such applicants
should be compelled to take up the freedom, while the rich
wholesale dealer was, exempted from any such obligation.
He hoped the day was near when nothing of the kind should
be heard of.—( Hear, hear.)