The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

THE SUGAR DUTIES.

diction of the Cinque Ports, and he thought this was ti
great defect in the Bill.
Mr. T. M. GIBSON said the Bill would not in any
way affect the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, and he
trusted therefore the Hon. Gentleman would allow it to
pass through Committee without opposition.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill. The
whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the report was
ordered to be brought up on Friday (this day).
The House then adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUilT.—Maidstone, July 23.

(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.)

This was an action brought against the defendant as
one of the provisional committee of a projected railway,
called the Liverpool and Derby Direct Railway, to re-
cover the sum of 411. odd for printing the prospectuses
and other papers connected with the undertaking.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Peacock were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Montague
Chambers for the defendant.

The evidence in support of the case for the plaintiff
was of a very slight character, and principally consisted
in the facts that his name appeared on the printed
prospectuses as one of the provisional committee, and
that upon reference being made to him as to the re•
spectability of a party who was applying for shares, he
wrote the word " good" upon the document sent to him.
It appeared that the scheme of the railway in question
was projected by an attorney, named Mount; and he ad-
mitted, on cross-examination, that the defendant had
never given any written authority for his name to be
placed upon the list of the provisional committee, but
that he received that authority from a person whom he
supposed acted for the defendant, and who, he admitted,
was in Court, although he was not called as a witness.
hle likewise admitted that the defendant, who, it appears,
is a barrister, never attended any meeting, or took the
slightest share in any proceeding connected with the
company ; and, also, that he was now acting as an at-
torney for the plaintiff in the present action.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE made an able address to the jury,
pointing out the weakness of the case for the plaintiff,
and called upon them not to sanction such an attempt
as the present to obtain money from the defendant,
when he had in no wise rendered himself responsible for
the payment of it.
Mr. Baron PARKE briefly summed up, and left it to
the jury to say whether, upon the very meagre evidence
that had been produced, and taking into consideration
the fact that if the defendant had really sanctioned the
placing of his name upon the provisional committee, it
was admitted there was a witness in Court, who might
have been called to prove it, they could come to the
conclusion that the defendant was responsible for the
payment of the claim made upon him by the plaintiff.
The jury, after deliberating a few minutes, returned
a verdict for the defendant. . .

Mr. Baron PARSE said he thought this was a proper
verdict. Persons ought not to be made liable for such
matters, unless better evidence was offered than in the
present case.
HOWDEN V. HOLMES.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bramwell were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Peacock
fox' the defendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS said this was another railway case
but he believed the jury would see that the present claim
was made under very different circumstances to the one
that had just been disposed of. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to state the circumstances under which
the action was brought. The plaintiff he described as
being a writer to the Signet, in Scotland, who also
carried on the profession of a parliamentary agent in
London : and he sought to recover frOm the defendant,
as one of the provisional committee of a projected rail-
way, called the Hull, Birmingham, and Swansea Junc-
tion Railway company, the sum of 1361. for services as
a parliamentary agent in connexion with that Company.
It appeared that the company was projected in the latter
end of 1845, by a solicitor named Eldershaw, and the
defendant, who was a boiler maker, and a person of in-
fluence in the town of Hull, gave his written consent to
act as one of the provisional committee, and he was
represented as such in the form prescribed by the Act
of Parliament. The panic of last year had the effect
upon this scheme which it had upon so many others, and
the London committee resolved to wind up the affairs
of the company ; and upon examining the accounts, it
was found that if every member of this committee paid
down the sum of 251., it would raise a sufficient amount
to pay off the whole claims upon the company; and the
London Committee agreed to contribute their share,
but it appeared that the defendant and the other mem-
bers of the Hull Committee refused to accede to this
arrangemet, and Mr. Chambers admitted that in conse-
quence of the refusal of these gentlemen to contribute
what was considered there quota towards the liabilities
of the defunct company, that the secretary and solicitor
were assisting the plaintiff in his action to compel the
defendant to pay the whole amount for which he was
legally responsible in his capacity as one of the provi-
sional committee.

The various documents were put in to show the posi-
tion of the defendant in connexion with the company,
and evidence was likewise adduced to show that the
charges made by the plaintiff were fair and reasonable.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL', addressed the jury for the
defendant, and said that this was an attempt to obtain
money from Mr. Holmes, and a number of other gen•
tlemen residing at Hull, without—as he had no doubt he
should be able to satisfy the jury—the slightest ground
for the claim that was made upon them. The specula-
tion in question, as they had heard, was projected by
Mr. Elderton, the attorney, who, thinking it would be
advantageous to the scheme that it should have the sup-
port of persons of influence in the town of Hull, took
proceedings to obtain these signatures to the prospectus
that was issued to the public. He in the first place ap-
plied to Mr. Jones, the Mayor of Hull, and asked for his
support to the scheme, and in that communication he
expressly stated that if the Mayor would allow his name
to be placed upon the list of the committee, and would
use his influence to induce other responsible persons in
the town to do the same, that the whole of the parties
should be guaranteed from all liability with regard to the
expenses that might be incurred.
Mr. CHAMBERS interposed, and submitted to the Court
that such proof as this would not affect the claim of the
present plaintiff.
Mr. Baron PARKE expressed an opinion that the evi-
dence suggested by Mr. Sergeant Channell would be
perfectly relevant. The question the jury would have
to consider was, whether the defendant intended to
make himself responsible, or whether he had merely
consented that his name should be placed upon the list
of the Committee under the guarantee that he should
not be called upon for any share of the expenses.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL then proceeded to state that
it was entirely owing to the representations of Mr.
Elderton, and the guarantee given him, that Mr. Jones,
and the defendant, and the other gentlemen living at
Hull, consented to allow their names to be placed upon
the provisional committee, and they never took any
share in the subsequent proceedings. Eventually, how-
ever, a demand was made upon each of them for the
sum of 251., which would have amounted altogether to
between two and three thousand pounds; and when they
inquired how this sum was to be disposd of, and wished
to see the accounts, they were not allowed to see them, but
were told that after the money was paid they would be in-
formed how the accounts stood. They, of course,
objected to pay any money under such circumstances,
and when the jury had seen the documents he should
lay before them, he had very little doubt that they would
be of opinion that the defendant was entitled to a
verdict.

• -----
The Learned Counsel then put in the letters he re-
ferred to, bearing out the statement as to the nature of
the original connexions between the parties, and like-
wise the guarantee with regard to the expenses that
was given by Mr. Elderton. It did not appear, however,
that the present defendant was aware originally of the
existence of a guarantee audit seemed that he signed the
prospectus and gave his written consent to act as one of
the committee before he was aware of its existence. It
was part of the defendant's case also, that the plaintiff
was not a regular parliamentary agent, although he
had taken upon himself to act in that capacity; and that,
uatteheatralpßle&rehdavi in
te therefore, he was not entitled to claim for a number of
h
having
summed
isaccount.
items Mr.
up,
and placed all
the material facts clearly before the
a verdict for the plaintiff. Da tnages, SOL

„The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
`Qtt his Noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury
*()tild not be able to attend in the House to-morrow,
tibia day)
bdslety)s.and he therefore begged to give notice th at
n on the Sugar Duties Bill would neces-
lit2s7l
eus
postponed until Monday.
This
DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.
M-.'"% Bill was then read a second time on the motion
t George Grey.
he iiYENLEY asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether
ciAb'ection to have the Bill printed?
der'' said he had not ; the word ” Septem-
Illual4„ be found to be substituted for the word
11,11
rell ?PIIS AND WASH •HOUSES BILL.
agreed
toP'tt Oil this Bill was then brought up and
XCLI.I
rp, 8-
T..„,PRIVILEGE OF TRADING ABO-
t -uION (IRELAND)
.BILL.
Whol:-.8013f then went into Committee on this Bill ;
the clauses were agreed to, with a
tha ti•tnien-raents the chairman reported progress, and
°Port
sr, Oraered to be brought uo to-morrow.
1:71141;11•TON NAVIGATION
° Aerls also went through Committee. Report
et] to be brought up on Monday next.
PRISONS (IRELAND)
Its% 2,8111 also went through Committee.BILL.
The report
Vaered to be brought up to-morrow.
414 nthe motion fMr LABOUCHERE, the other
.)1118 of h. hoh h
GRAND%N. - had charge were postponed 1.
next.
:TrAitili‘);:\ty:iiv}:iciiiisstridßaYy).CESS BONDS (IRELANRDep)oBrtILoLn.
Fr f.',3_91
_Went through Committee.
~, "LANDAMUS (IRELAND) BILL.
dawye)n.t through Committee. Report on
41:10N OF COSTS (COMPENSATION FOR
1.11. LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
Prid
tty (thisi; 8.11 wentd through Committee. Report on
This Bill 11°°ICS AND ENGRAVINGS BILL.
IN
order went through Committee, and the report
ed to be brought up on Friday (this day).
th WRECK AND SALVAGE BILL.
1311 this •„(4. question being put for going into Committee
vi. 5111,
R'reltjUTT said he had no doubt this Bill would work
__
44reitt,„4111)rovernent in the law, indeed it was generally
1414..'"' that it would do so, but there were certain
444'a% in the Bill which must either be expunged
.or
Tt, b."( 1 before he could give his sanction to the BilL
4411 had not acknowledged or continued the jurie-

~`>

TUE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 24, 1846.

were printed and published. The railway came late in the
day—rather too late. The prospectuses were not sent about,
but applicants had them. Letter of introduction was sent
to General Johnson, and witness saw it at General Johnson's.
Went down subsequently with the plaintiff to General
Johnson's. Mr. Hughes produced his plans. The line was
to go through the grounds of the defendant. That was ex-
plained to him. Their conversation was principally as to
the direction the line was to take. General Johnson ex-
pressed his opinion as to the line, in some respects favour-
able, in others not. I stated to him that I was-indebted to
the kindness of Mr. Collins for the names of Mr. Etwall
and Mr. Villiers, the Members for Andover and Wolver-
hampton. Dwelt a long time en the way we were to pass
through the General's property. An appointment was made
for the following Tuesday. Defendant said he expected to
be in London in a few days. He was waiting for a letter
from Mr. Collins. Witness asked the General whether he
would like to appoint his own solicitor? that they were al-
ready in communication with Mr. Bell, of Bowen, but they
did not wish to appoint any person disagreeable to him.
The General said they could not appoint a more active or in-
tePigent person.
Cross-examined—Mr. Hughes was appointed by Mr. Fox.
The defendant objected to the line as originally projected,
and pointed out the properties of other gentlemen to whom
it would have been a nuisance, whose names he mentioned.
The company's first name was the Birmingham, Leicester,
and Spalding ; the other name was the Leicester, Melton
Mowbray, and Spalding. Remembers pointing out to the
General the names of Etwall and Villiers in the prospectus.
A meeting was held, and they decided upon calling on each
committeeman for 601. Mr. Hughes has been paid 8001. or
9001. 2,1001. was his demand for engineering. The demand
on the company and in this action was the same thing. Did
say he disappoved of the action. Might have said it was a
rascally action.
Mr. Sweeting, of 4, Trafalgar-square, was formerly soli-
citor to this company. There was a resolution come to, ap-
pointing plaintiff engineer. His name appeared in the pro-
spectus as engineer, and Charles Fox, Esq., as consulting
engineer. Believes the plaintiff was the working engineer.
Mr. Haddon described himself as principal leveller to the
COITI p any.
The Learned JUDGE observed, " He must be an awkward
customer."
The case failed from want of proper particulars of demand,
and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Nottingham, July 23.
The commissions for the county and town of Nottingham
were opened last evening by Mr. Justice Coleridge. There
are eleven causes, and about fourteen prisoners in the county
and five in the city gaol.
This day lLfary Goodall, who had been found guilty at the
last assizes of an attempt to procure abortion, of which
attempt the woman operated upon died, was sentenced to
two years imprisonment and hard labour, the point raised
in ber favour before the twelve judges having been decided
against her.

IRISH ASSIZES.
COUNTY ANTRlM—Carrickfergus, July 18.
CMARGE OF MURDER—TENANT RlGHT.—Lewis O'Don-
nell was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder
of Guy Morrow, at Glenarm, on the 9th of April, by hurling a
stone at him, from the effects of which he languished and
died on the 28th of April.
After the examination of two or three witnesses, the facts
of the case appeared of so mitigated a character that the
Crown consented to receive a plea of guilty of manslaughter
only.
Mr. O'HAGAN then called witnesses, who gave the prisoner
an excellent character.

The Learned JUDE called for the informations, and from
these it appeared that the crime was committed on the estate
of Alexander M'Donnell, Esq.. of Glenarm Castle, and that
it arose from an infringement of Ulster tenant-right.
Sir Thomas Staples having conferred with Mr. M'Donnell's
agent, informed the Learned Judge that though from the in-
formations the offence might seem to partake of a Whiteboy
character, he was happy to say that the agent of Mr. M'Don-
nell had stated that it was altogether free from the cha-
racter attributed to it in the informations.

Judge CRAMPTON—The statement you have made, Sir
Thomas, is very important in favour of the prisoner. While
reading the informations I was afraid that it had sprung from
a state of society in some parts of this country—that it was a
part of that infamous and clandestine code which attempts to
deprive the landlord of his just rights, and contravenes every
constitutional principle Had this character appeared, I
should have visited it with the most signal punishment. I
am happy to find that it is free from this most atrocions'cha-
racter, and that it was the result of a sudden impulse of
passion. Under these circumstances I shall only sentence
the prisoner to be imprisoned for three months, with hard
labour.

Lilly 3PGrane, a girl against whom a new indictment had
been sent up yesterday, for aiding Edward Harten in violating
the person of Mary Esler, was found guilty of the crime im-
puted to her.

n Judge CH./on-row, after commenting in strong terms on
the atrocity cf the crime, sentenced the prisoner to be trans-
ported for life.

James llPßlain, and several others, were indicted for ex-
tensive forgeries on the Loan Fund in Belfast. They were
also indicted for a conspiracy to defraud the Loan Fund, by
representing as true documents, purporting to be securities,
which were forged.
On the part of the prosecution it was agreed to receive from
the prisoners a plea of " guilty" of conspiracy, with an un-
dertaking not to press the charge of forgery.
Judge CRAMPTON sentenced the parties respectively to
nine months' imprisonment.

COUNTY OF FE 1?M AIV AGH.--Enniskillen,July 18.
Eleven persons, charged with being members of a Ribbon
Lodge, were arraigned ; but on the earnest application of Mr.
Schoales, the Crown counsel, their trial was postponed until
next assizes.

The JUDGE directed that they sh•uld be let out on bail, and
Judge Torrens sent for' the resident magistrate to take bail ;
but it is stated that that functionary declined to attend, and,
after soma delay, another magistrate was induced to come
forward and receive bail for the prisoners I