The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-03 00:00:00

TEE SUN, lAONDO/si, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 6, 18461

Price

Z N. d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
25 0 0
20 0 0
10 0 0 15%
7 10 0
25 0 0
10 0 0
20 0 0
35 0 0
10 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0

Paid. Pri,

X a. d.
50 0 0 71
11 0 0 lE
50 0 5
5 0 0 15
50 0 7
2 10 0 .-
10 0 0
50 0
50 0 5
20 0 3
All paid. 20
3 0 0

1 0 0 1 -
10 0 0 2:
0 10 0

C 15 0

Paid.

The arguments having been finished, judgment was
deferred.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
RAILWAY SHARES ON WHICH A CALL IS DIM--
M‘EWEN V. WOODS AND OTHERS.
Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., applied for a rule to show cause
why a nonsuit should not be entered in this case. The
case was tried at the last Liverpool Assizes before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, and a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff with the permission of the Learned Judge sub-
sequently to enter a nonsuit. The acticn was for money
315 had and received. The defendants pleaded non
assumpsit. The ground on which Mr. Justice Cress-
well agreed to the application for a nonsuit was the dis-
puted question, whether an action for money had and
received, would lie under the circumstances. The
defendants are sharebrokers at Liverpool, the plaintiff, a
gentleman, residing at Aberdeen. On the 13th of
August, 1845, the plaintiff wrote to the defendants, re-
questing them t 3 purchase for him 20 or 30 shares
in the Limerick and Watnford Railway, and
carry the amount to the next account.
ice. The defendants, who were brokers only, purchased the
shares from other brokers in Liverpool, which they
notified to the plaintiff, at the same time sending him an
0 invoice, and on the 26th of August, a few days before
the account day, which took place at the end of the
month, the plaintiff remitted the defendants 1461. 10s., to
'3f3 defray the purchase of the shares, therefore this was not
a transaction between them as principals, as they pur-
chased the shares for the plaintiff, and did not sell them
to him. If they had been the sellers the case would
cc. have been different, but the money was simply sent to
fulfil a contract into which they had entered on his be-
half. It is true they made: themselves personally liable
to the brokers of whom they purchased these shares.
The shares were to be delivered to the plaintiff by the
end of August, but between the day of the purchase
and the day for their delivery they were
called in by the promoters of the com-
pany for the purpose of being registered, prepara-
tory to the payment of a call of 5/. per share, it being
understood that no transfer wwald take place until the
calls were paid. The persons who had to pay the calls
were those who sent in the shares, and as they were
sent in by the brokers, they wore the parties looked to.
The plaintiff, it would appear, was well aware of the
call, as in two letters which he sent to the defendants,
bearing date the 22d of September and the 14th of No-
vember, he expressed his belief that a call was then due.
A month or two elapsed *before the shares were re-
issued, and on the 19th of December the defendants ap-
plied to the plaintiff for this calls, and enclosed him an
invoice for 1511. 10s., they being paid 1501. for the
shares, and 1/. 10s. for the stamp. He refused to pay the
call, repudiated the bargain, and applied for the re-
payment of the money he had sent to them, stating that
he had expected the shares for that amount. Now he
(Mr. Knowles) submitted that he was not in a
position to repudiate the bargain, and that
he could not sue the defendants for the
money, because there wv.s no failure of consideration,
inasmuch as they had fulfilled their part of the transac-
tion. The plaintiff knew- that a call was due, and that
unless he paid it he could not obtain the shares. The
defendants had paid 1601. altogether on account of the
shares. The call was unpaid.
Rule granted.
THE NEW JUDGES.—The Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas (Mr. Justice Erie) and Mr. Justice Vaughan,
were sworn in in this Court shortly after its sitting this
morning.

BROMAGE V. VAUGHAN AND BEVAN.
Mr. WHATELEY moved fora rule to show cause why
a nonsuit should not be entered in this case. It was
tried at Gloucester before the Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, and the jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff of 1641., with leave to the defendants to enter a
nonsuit. The action was brought upon, a bill of ex-
change, drawn by one of the defendants, Philip
Vaughan, accepted by a person named Beaumont, and
endorsed by Vaughan in his .own name, and that of the
other defendant, they being attorneya in partnership to
the plaintiff. The grounds on which a right of nonsuit
was granted were simply these—whether the acts
of Vaughan was to bind the other defendant (Bevan)
and whether a proper notice of dishonour was given.
The bill was made payable at the London Joint Stock
Bank, whereas the notice of dishonour made it payable
at the London and Westminster Bank. However, the
two banks are under one management, although situated
in different parts of London.
Vaughan, it appeared, suffered judgment to go by
default, but Bevan pleaded that he was not a party to
the
ice endorsemen
honour. t, and that he did not receive a proper
not of dis It appeared, however, that bills drawn by Vaughan in a similar manner were paid with
the cognizance of Bevan.
Lord DENMAN intimated that he would consult Chief Justice Wilde on the subject.
WOOD V. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff is a cab owner, and the defendants linen
l°
'
drapers, carrying on business in Oxford-stterenn beforeri
et.
action, which was tried in the last Trinity
Lord Denman, was brought to recover damages for in-
juries inflicted on a cab belonging to the ple:intiff by a cart
driven by the servant of the defendant. The jury gave a
verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared froan the evidence ad-
duced at the trial that the cab was on s, stand, and that the
cart, which was driven by a man named Phillips, came
in collision with it, causing the injuries for which com-
pensation was sought. It came out, however, that the
cart was only hired by the defendant from a person
named Gamp, who employed his own driver, but on
the day in question Phi llips drove it, in the
unaviodable absence of the d river; before doing so, pri-
soner Gamp cautioned him, that if he did so it would
be at his own risk. The c ase had been twice tried, each
time a verdict having bren returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. KNowaEs to-day applied for a new trial, and
contended that the verdict was fallacious, inasmuch as
the cart was not driven by Phillips on the authority of
the defendants.
Lord DENMAN turned to his notes, and held tha; 11-
evidence proved that on the day in question tl,- 'e
Phillips was acting as the servant of the defy. e man
he had received directions from their fa- "Idants' as
Collins, to drive the cart to a certain - --iernan, named
the whole of the evidence, he „dace. Looking at
warranted by the evidence_ considered the verdict
„Es.
_,,a. POTTER.
drTeEfußsd the application.
This= case was try er N v
wich, before th 11 at the last summer asbizos at Ips-
'
,-
v,.rdict
.4 late Mr. Justice Williams when a
Air. (vs for the plai!itiff.
of mt 4ALLEy
I.IIT appeared'v'ilf''l. h
a tncawt , trial on thleB‘2s.r,outhnde
rOf‘intiff purchased a horse from the defendant for 281,

1837. On the 4th of April an order of nisi
was obtained for the purpose of confirming this
report. Exceptions were then taken to certain
Polish and Austrian bonds contained in the
box, which exceptions were allowed. Several other legal
steps were then,.had recourse to, and the object, of the
present petition was to ascertain whether the Countess
was entitled to the amount of the arrears due on the
French policy at the testator's decease, as well as the
arrear due on the Milan policy.
After hearing the arguments on both sides in extenso,
Lord LANGDALE went through the case in detail, and
having expressed his opinion as to the impropriety of
bringing forward the case at all, dismissed the petition
with costs.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE- CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England took un,
opposed cause petitions, motions, and petitions to-day.
THORNHILL V. THORNHILL.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of
the infant, Miss Thornhill, praying that her mother
might be continued her guardian, notwithstanding her
subsequent marriage. The mother was appointed the
guardian of her daughter by a codicil to the will of het
late husband, and the petition prayed that she might
continue to be so and receive the allowance.
The VICE CHANCELLOR made the order.
Mr. BETHELL, who appeared for the petitioner, stated
that provision had been made on this subject in the
mother's marriage settlement.
FERDIOR v. POMFRET.
This case came before the Court upon the petition of
of the present Earl Pomfret, praying for a reference to
the Master to inquire whether it would be for the benefit
of the petitioner's estate, that certain timber should be
Icut down, and certain repairs made.
A The VICE CHANCELLOR made the order as prayed.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SHREWSBURY ESTATE ACT.
This was the petition of the trustees of the Shrewsbury
Estate, praying for a reference to the Master to inquire
whether the funds in court should be laid out in the
purchase of certain lands.
The COURT made the order for the reference. _
135 VARTY V. DUNCAN.
o 4834 The Court was occupied the remainder of the day
o 230 with the arguments in this case, which came before the
31
° Court upon motion for the new trial of an issue directed
I
O by the Court to inquire whether certain persons were
o 6M trustees under a local Act, passed in the reign of George
0 1514 IL of certain premises in the neighbourhood of the
0 15M
O Adelphi, between Villiers-street and Buckingham-street,
o called York-buildings, and whether, as such trustees,
o they had a right to levy rates on the inhabitants of the
o s neighbourhood, for the purpose of keeping those build-
-21. Os.
205 ings in repair. The issue was tried before the Lord
Chief Justice, and a verdict found for the plaintiff,
1 and the present application was fur a new trial of that
76 issue.
o Mr. Walker and Mr. Elmslie were in support of the
9 application, and Mr. Bethell and Mr. Schomberg ap-
peared to oppose it.
:s. The arguments not having concluded at the rising of
the Court, the case will be proceeded with to-morrow.
ice. (Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
CAMPBELL V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a bill filed against the Brighton Railway
Company to test the question whether the holders of
notes, issued on the loan of 300,0001., can claim the
conversion of their notes into shares, if due notice be
I4s given of this intention previous to the year 1847. It
*2 appears that the company in 1842 resolved to raise a
Ili loan of 300,000 L, and issued 401. loan notes for five
14 years at five per cent., and on the back of the note was
an endorsement which gave the acceptor the option of
1):: converting his notes into quarter shares of 101., upon
6s due notice being given before the 15th February, 1845.
cu The defendants contend that these stipulations were
% clearly embodied in the advertisement for the loan,
the tender, and the endorsement on the loan
4 note, and that while the option to convert was
814 given, it was yet limited in time to February, 1845, and
2 that the holders who have allowed this period to pass
a have thereby lost their right to shares in the company.
N Mr. Romilly, Q.C., Mr. Rae, and Mr. Adams, were
p‘ heard this morning for the defendants.
r Mr. BETHELL (with whom was Mr. Goldschmid) re-
) plied for the plaintiff, contending on his part, that all
that could be viewed by the Court as a contract, was
that stipulation which appeared on the face of the loan
note.
Price.

The horse was ultimately attacked with lameness, which
was supposed to result from a " splint" in the fore leg
of the horse, which existed at the time of the purchase.
The defendant had given a written warranty to the
plaintiff as to the soundness of the horse. The question,
therefore, at the trial was, whether there was a breach
of warranty or not. It was shown that the plaintiff had
examined the horse before he made the purchase. One
of the witnesses of the plaintiff said that the horse had
no splint at the time, whilst all the others said that it
was distinctly visible in the fore leg. The Learned
Judge thus put the case to the jury. If the horse had a
splint at the time of the contract, and afterwards produced
his lameness, then the warranty was incorrect and the
contract void; whereas, he (Mr. O'Malley) contended
that the " splint" turned into lameness in consequence of
the improper treatment of the purchaser, and that the
" splint" was well known at the time of the contract, and
was, therefore, excluded from the terms of the warranty.
Lord DENMAN took time to consider the application,
and in order that he might have an opportunity of con-
sulting the late Mr. Justice Williams's notes.

BAIL COURT.-(T,HIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
COOKE V. SIR W. R. TONKIN, KNIGHT.
Mr. Pnirtx moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given for the plaintiff in this case should not be
set aside and a new trial granted. The Learned Counsel
stated that the cause was tried before the Under-sheriff
for Middlesex during the long vacation, and a verdict
given for the plaintiff for the sum of 171. 18s. 9d., and he
moved for this rule on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence, and by misdirection. The action was
brought for advertisements and prospectuses for
a railway company called the Oxford, Theme
High Wycombe, and Uxbridge Junction Railway.
The plaintiff was the proprietor of the Oxford Chro-
nicle, and he sought to fix the defendant as a member
of the provisional committee. It appeared on the trial
that some meetings were held previous to the formation
of the company, at an office in Regent-street. The de-
fendant had acquiesced in a proposal made to him to
become a member of the provisional committee. The
only evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff was,
that the solicitor to the company had, through his
clerk, given orders for the various items in the bill for
advertisements, &c., to be inserted, and for papers con-
taining them. It appeared on the evidence, that on the
formation of the company there was a managing
committee, as well as a provisional one, and that ma-
naging committee were entrusted with the affairs of
the company. All the items in the plaintiff's bill
were for November, and the evidence only, went to
show thht the defendant, in October, attended two
meetings, which were not regular meetings, but meet-
ings held before the formation of the company. The
managing committee had been appointed before the
debt for advertisements had been contracted. When
the defendant was a member of the provisional com-
mittee, it did not appear that there was any company
for which they could act. The plaintiff's right to sue after
the appointment of the managing committee was clear,but
did not show that after the 10th of October any act
was committed by the defendant, identifying him with
the managing committee which then commenced. He
(Mr. Phinn) had submitted to the Under-sheriff that
they were entitled to a nonsuit, as the managing Om-
mittee were prima facie the parties who obtained
credit. The presumption certainly was that the credit
had been given to the managing committee, if, indeed,
it had not been given to the solieitor. Two cases had
lately been decided, viz., Lowe v. Wilson, and Banker v.
Good.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—The cases have been cited
frequently. In the Court of Exchequer yesterday, a
rule was granted on that very point. There were two
cases tried before me at Derby—but then there was
some evidence that the provisional committee had au-
thorised the managing committee to act for themselves,
and, of course, the Learned Counsel made the most of
that, and it went to the jury on that ground. In this
case there does not appear to have been anything done
to connect the defendant with the managing committee.
It, however, is not intended to be laid down as a matter
of law, that on the appointment of the managing com-
mittee the provisional committee are freed from all
liability.
The Learned JUDGE said that it was clear that the
case must be discussed in full Court, as a great many
cases of this kind would arise, containing nearly the
same points as the one in which the rule had been
granted in the Court of Exchequer yesterday.—Rule
granted.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
PICKFORD AND OTHERS V. LACON.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
31. 45., the sum which the defendant had contracted to
pay in consideration of three seats being reserved for him
in the plaintiff's coach from Yarmouth to London.
Mr. Watson, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Archbold)
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Montague Smith conducted the defence.
Mr. WATSON stated the case briefly. The plaintiff
was a clerk in the Customs at Newhaven, and in June,
1845, went to Norwich with his wife and servant. On
the 16th of June in that year he sent to engage three
places in the plaintiff's coach to London for the following
day. They entered their places, but on the coach reach-
ing Yoxford he got out, saying that the coach was over-
loaded, and proceeded with his wife in a post-
chaise to London. On the coach arriving at
London, application was made to Mr. Lacon for the
money for the fare, but he refused to pay it. He stated
that the coach was overloaded, but he was the only per-
son who seemed to entertain such an opinion, for his
servant proceeded to London without expressing any
desire to leave. His clients had been anxious to try the
present case as cheaply as possible, and therefore would
have brought it on before the-Under-Sheriff ; but the
Learned Judge was of opinion that the nature of the case
rendered it desirable that it should be brought forward
in ono of the higher Courts.
Mr. C. J. Powell proved the license of the coach,
which contained the names of the proprietors.
Mr. Cooke stated that, in 1845, he was book-keeper
at the office at Yarmouth. Has seen all the plaintiffs
there, and he has transacted business with them as pro-
prietors. On the 16th of June in that year the man-
servant of the defendant came and took three places--
one inside and two out. Directions were given that the
passengers were to be taken up at Mr. Lacon's, on the
quay. A pound was paid down. There were twelve
people outside the coach.

- Mr. M'Namara, a railway agent, proved that he was
on the coach on the 17th of June. He got up at Lowes-
toft, a few miles from Yarmouth. Remembers getting
to Yoxford about thirty miles from Yarmouth, and there
his attention was called to Mr. Lacon, who had been on
the box. There were some words between Mr. Lacon and
the coachman about an excess of luggage and passengers
on the coach. Mr. Lacon sent for a post•chaise and left
the coach.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CROWDER having addressed the jury, and called
certain witnesses to testify as to the loading of the coach,
and

Mr. WATSON having replied at some length,
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and said that he
certainly did not consider that the contract for the seat
meant allowing a given quantity of room abstractedly
from all other considerations, for much inconvenience
might arise from such an interpretation. The question
for the jury, after all, was, whether the coach was so
overloaded as to render the travelling in it of a dangerous
character.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY )
(Sittings in Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a
common jury.)
WELSBY V. BROWN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
ney, in the county of Stafford, to recover the sum of
571. I ls. 9d. for professional services rendered by him
to the parish of Abbot's Bromley, during the year
1839, and following years, up to the present time, against
the defendant, who during the years 1839 and 1840, was
one of the overseers of the parish in question.
Mr. Martin, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Watson, Q.C., for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence given by various wit-
nesses, called on behalf of the plaintiff, that expenses had
been incurred by the plaintiff in the removal of various
paupers, attending orders, appeals, and sundry other
matters of parochial business.
It was contended by Mr. MARTIN, Q.C., that the de-
fendant had rendered himself liable to plaintiff for the
payment of his account for services rendcred to the
parish, inasmuch as he had himself given the order for
the performance of such works or services.
Mr. WATsoN, Q.C., on the other hand, contended
that the defendant was not liable, and that even if he
were so, it was a debt contracted prior to the time
allowed by the statute of limitations. The case WES
one which would involve a great hardship upon the de-
fendant if he were cempelled to pay debts con-
tracted -on behalf of the parislf, and which
should properly be paid out of the rates
levied from ti;ne to time for that purpose. 'ewes the
duty of UP:, plaintiff to apply for his account during the
year in, which his services were rendered, as the parish
had not even the power to make a prospective rate. The
ecount rendered by plaintiff to defendant was not made
out to Brown the defendant, but to the parish of Abbot's
Bromley ; and in a note sent with the account, plaintiff
stated, " I send you my account against the parish of
Abbot's Bromley." With reference to those portions of
the account referring to periods not affected by the
had
affairs,asal
nagbnl3er histtwe
mayye
iaerc
statute of limitations, it was proved in evidence that
.nßrown, the defendant, was not the overseer, nor was he
oohfni
sn officeetteet
account
edhu withandt
expired,
xnp theired
which, management
ahned sottahteerd pt
he of its
Oihi
it
he
appointedinsisted
ea
ps
ee overseers.er
received
instructions
ennost
sincee r
ehe had ceased hada - either ee l-
charges made for attend
.persons of
thosefrom
and NVoodroffe, a d
of the parish ; on the contrary,.ted to be overseer
for his attendane mg upon
the therename weerrcehasemvbeerrasl
the overseers, but
question
nßaorf
g i
path,:
n it could for a moment that the d " '
- "Ot therefore, be supposed
..efendant was liable to plaintiff
and with or professional advice upon
with whom he was not in
the least d , -
:elpvashtneotNityhtet
hher
eree
7..01
adopted,.gree ctohnernie, catneyd.
perlsfonsuwcillio
hal.adpLarcotincee
were to
Y: oar r _zit liedp
eetnnhseeis: overseerffifAoicr,el7(s)cfaxittafttehrt, would be held liable
liability,llenntsltli(:uretlyas no doubt that if the do-
be clearly liable to plainct"ifonifletht;ist
fondant bad
se queues of such instructions wesrervfor thiellrespftaer
ephlaintiff, lie would
real question for the jury to conlcsei
acted upon, even thete.h the
he hadr°lll
it
tru c plaintifftita is (Iliinddayertu:,hlliychreceive f tlsdneerrcle on:verrieneicssrncltl:lica:dn it
nt
hopc-
that opinion, of Course a verdict taut;ite be
et( d. If they were of
given for ti ie
ati;nild3:ivollotirrikii.i(i'dirdotcnb:ToLsttrjntsheeerlvaoiicceelse;:retet-nr)rde
couldm a'bist'eehrrevibideellhalitidi':'LL':.il
office, and had no control over the matter. lip If louice,
...

therefore recommend the jury to find a verdict for the
defendant 'for that portion of the claim set up by the
plaintiff for services rendered by him during those
years in which defendant had ceased to be overseer.
The jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff
for the sum of 181. 10s. 3d., and for the defendant the
sum of 391. ls. 6d.
Leave was given to move to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for the latter amount in order to raise the
question, which was reserved by Mr. Baron Platt, as to
whether the account rendered by plaintiff had or had
not been properly delivered by plaintiff.
FOXFORTH AND ANOTHER V. KING.
This was a case tried at Newcastle-at the last assizes,
before Mr. Justice Cresswell, to recover the amount of a
policy of insurance effected on the ship Helena, in
which a verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., now moved for leave to enter a
verdict for the defendant upon the first and second
issues, and also for a new trial, upon the ground
of the verdict being against evidence. Upon
the first and second issues the Learned Counsel
contended that as the plaintiffs had parted
with their-interest in the ship, by virtue of a bill of sale
which they had effected in favour of a Mr. Hutchinson,
to whom the plaintiffs were indebted for sundry repairs
done by him to the ship in question, in which bill of sale
no mention whatever was made of the policy, plaintiffs
could not, therefore, have any claim upon the policy
originally effected by them, they having parted with
their interest in the ship upon which such policy was
made. The ground upon which a new trial was sought
was, that the verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as it
was proved that the ship was not at the time it was insured
in a seaworthy condition and also that a number of augur
holes were discovered to have been made in the ship's
side, and that in consequence of these holes, combined
with her bad condition, the ship went down in still
water, and not "in consequence of storms and tempes-
tuous weather," as set forth by plaintiffs in their decla-
ration.
The COURT stated that they would take time to con-
sult Mr. Justice Cresswell, in order to ascertain whether
he was satisfied with the nature and amount of evidence
given upon the trial.
BROWN AND LANGSIDE V. PROUB.
In this case which was one of that very numerous
class arising out of the "railway department," and which
was tried at the last Kent Assizes before Mr. Justice
Coltman, a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the
sum of 5441. 18s., being the amount claimed for work
and labour done as an engineering surveyor for and on
behalf of the Direct London and Hastings Railway.
The defendant was a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the said company.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA now moved for leave to
enter a verdict for the defendant on the ground that
he was not indebted to the plaintiffs, and that he bad
never employed them to survey the line in question. It
appeared that the plaintiffs were employed by two persons
of the name of Smith and Ryder, who were described on
the prospectuses as engineers to the company. On behalf
of the plaintiffs, it was endeavotased to be shown upon the
trial that in the case of persons so employed by the
engineer, it was the general usage for them to look
for payment from the company, and not to the
engineer. The witness, however, called to prove
this " general usage," could not state or particularise
any case in which such usage or custom pre-
vailed, and in cross-examination stated, that "it pre-
vailed in large companies, but not in small ones." The
Learned Counsel now contended that such evidence
should not have been left to the jury, as
it was not sufficiently explicit to substantiate the fact.
The plaintiffs had also sent their account to Messrs.
Smith and Ryder, and in consequence of its not having
been paid, they had threatened them with legal pro-
ceedings for the recovery of the same, thereby clearly
showing that they did not consider the defendant hi-
debted to them, nor was any agreement produced in
which it could be shown that either the defendant or
the company were at all liable for the payment
of the plaintiffs. Upon these grounds, therefore, it was
contended that leave should be given to enter a verdict
for the defendant.

The Court stated that they would take time for the
purpose of referring to Mr. Justice Coltman's note upon
the evidence given at the trial.

COMMON PLEAS. (THIS DAY.)
'Sittings in Banco before Lord aid Justice Sir Thos,
WILDE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice PATTISON,
and Mr. Justice V. lirmasxs.)

OATHS OF ABJURATION AND SUPREMACY.—.On the
assembling of the Court this morning., the oaths of abju-
ration and supremacy were severally administered by
the Clerk of the Court to the Lord Chief Justice and
Mr. Vaughan Williams.

PATER v. BAKER.
CHARGE OF SLANDER.—Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL
moved for a rule in this case, which was tried during the
last sittings after term in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice
Erle. The rule sought was to set aside the verdict which
was then obtained for the plaintiff, damages 181. 125.,
and to enter a nonsuit, or else to grant a new trial, on
the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The
Learned Judge on the trial thought there was just
enough of evidence to allow the case to go to the
jury, though he (Mr. Sergeant Channel) believed the
Learned Judge was not satisfied with the verdict.
Leave at the same time was granted to move on
another point, and to obtain leave to enter a nonsuit.
The action arose from what is called a slander of title,
and originated in the following circumstances:—The
plaintiff, Mr. Pater, was a solicitor, and residing in a
part of the parish of St. Pancras, called Agar-town,
and had been for some time agent and collector for the
gentleman from whom the name of the district was
derived, and in the course of business he had erected
twelve houses.' While in an unfinished state, he adver-

tised them for sale, ancl---a-ifr:Kennedy was employed
at the auctioneer. On the day of the sale, the de-
fendent, who is district surveyor under the Metro-
politan Building Act, attended the room, and before
the business commenced, addressed the company to the
following effect:—His object, in attending the sale, was
to inform the purchasers, if any present intended to be
such, that he would not allow the houses in question to
be finished or occupied till the roads in connexion with
them were finished. He could not compel the roads to
be finished, but he wished to inform purchasers that they
would have to keep
the carcases till the roads were
made. This was the main count in the charge. There
was another, which stated that several: persons, in con-
sequence of this intimation from Mr. Baker, declined to
purchase. The plaintiff denied that the roads werein
the state represented, and that they were sufficient for
conformity with the Act, and an action was accordingly
brought to recover damages. The plea of the defendant
was not guilty, and in his defence, he went to show
that the road way to the houses was not such as 9e
provisions of the Act required, and that the drains
were in a most imperfect state. In regard
to the charges of Mr. Baker respecting the property,
some time after the day of the sale the matter was re-
ferred to the Commissioners, and they caused a view of
the property to be taken. The official referees decided
that the drains were in an imperfect state, but that there
was a roadway to the front of the houses wide enough
to allow a scavenger's cart to pass, and therefore wide
enough for the requirements of the Act ; but that it was
in a very rough and unfinished state. The defendant,
however, in respect to the road, called attention to the
fact, that since the time he had attended the sale it had
been much improved
; and further, that the whole pro-
perty of M. r. Agar, of which Mr. Pater was agent, was
in a most imperfect state in regard to drainage and road
accommodation. The defendant, in the course he had
taken, acted from no malicious motives, but from
strong sense of his duty to the public, a fact which the
judge had commented on when summing up. He (Mr,
Sergeant Channel) hoped, therefore, that their Lord-
ships would grant the rule to show cause against the
verdict, and that they would consult the judge as to
whether he had considered the verdict satisfactorily.
Rule nisi granted to show cause against the verdict.
DA.W SON V. MORRISON.-LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL
DIRECTORS.-THE OXFORD, WITNEY, CHELTENHAM,

AND GLOUCESTER INDEPENDENT RAILWAY.
This action was tried at the last Surrey assizes, before
Mr. Justice Coltman, and a verdict given for the defen-
dant. A rule was now sought to set aside the verdict,
on the grounds that it was against evidence and for mis-
direction,

The plaintiff was Mr. Dawson, the advertising agent,
who sought to recover 4961. for advertisements in-
serted in various newspapers announcing a cer-
tain scheme,ir.ja m
ecsalle d
Morrison, ,e Ooxf fosrtd.,
Mary-at-
hill, n.
ae y'
t -
hill, one of the
Cheltenham, and Gloucester Independent Railway; the
defendant railwayw was
jl
provisional directors of the said company.
htt haaedp
padeleas fore
enbdtel aes nun
ht s
se tenvius
oe foundnn a
several
e vwe
with
eannodfei
In the first prospectus of the company, advertised by
ap theronumberplaintiff,
a lo
dftirhoeetchtneoarrms,.
occasions at the office of the company, 58, Gracechurch-
street. The latter point had not been much depended on
at the trial, as there wasanother company which met at the
same address, of which the defendant was a shareholder.
In answer to the action, the defendant denied his
1 liability, and pleaded that he was not one of the com-
mittee of management, though his name had appeared
as a member of the provisional committee. The allot-
ment of ' the shares, it was alleged in the prospectus, was
placed entirely in the hands of the managing: committee,
as also the receiving of the deposits amd the application
of the funds; therefore, there being no duties or powers
specially conferred on the general provisional committee,
they could not be made liable for the account of the de-
fendant. Besides, the plaintiff denied that he had
allowed his name to be used. The plaintiff, on the other
hand, affirmed that the managing committee acted
Linder the general committee, and that the latter
were equally responsible ; that the applications for
shares were addressed to the provisional committee ;
and that it had been proved on one occasion that
the defendant, on being referred to as a director
to give information as to the respectability of an
application, wrote against the party's name, " Very
good." This was an adinissiod„. though not in express
terms, that he was a director of the company. If he
was a director, then the plaintiff maintained that he was
responsible for the debts contracted, though the Learned
Judge had i
'nstructed the jury otherwise,. and that from
the terms of the prospectus, the managing committee
appeared to be the responsible party, they being ad:
from the general cernmitte°. il.
vertised separately
0 Ilict was accordingly given for the defentiant- .
Tri
CHIEF JUsTICt said the resent,p case did not
The "" ctus, but
.1--- .tie construction of the prospt. '
turn sinipl47.ou L
A effect from the document vv.`,ich had
received aiti an‘-•
and the letters addressed to the vrovi-
oven referred to, not
1 the prospectus might
. Thong 1
sional committee. .
that the provisional cominitt t,e
bear the constru beforeo
whom such applications were I
were the parties r
ea by the letter wherein the
laid, it would allP referred to as a director, ,
, , , ~,,1 pc
ell
del""1" 1-- 1 net Pigneil e.x.prossly as such,
he hat , 4,1-ling am/hist tin,
• f thou i that - ' e aami,:oll of it li) .. b b .
he had made ow .
d•" Isasinuch as the question
name "Very goo . .ttee did not arise
party's
..
of the provisional eoVolui
, of the liability

from the legal construction of the terms of the pro-
spectus, but was to be taken from its effects and other
facts in relation to the transactions of the company, the
judge had properly left the whole question to the jury,
and the rule for misdirection could not go. But on ac-
count of the great general importance of the case, and in
order that the question might be fully considered by the
Court, the rule to show cause that the verdict was
against evidence would be granted.
Rule nisi accordingly granted.
KENT V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. Serjeant CHANNEL moved for a rule to show
cause why the costs in this suit should not be subject to
taxation. He made the application on behalf of the de-
fendant, which arose out of an action brought by Mr. Kent
against the Great Western Railway Company, for over-
charges for conveying goods along the line. The action was
tried before Lord Chief Justice Tindal last assizes, and
a verdict for the plaintiff given for 1951. 12s. 4d. The
point now at issue was the amount of costs; the plaintiff
did not oppose the taxing of the costs after the issuing of
the writ, but objected to the same before that period.
The charge made for costs before the issuing of the writ
was 1791. 3s. 6d. ; white the master had reduced the
amount by taxation to 1331. 12s.
The Court took time to consider the application. .
_ GILES V. THE RYE HARBOUR COMPANY.

Mr. BRAinwELL applied fora rule to stay proceedings
in this case, on account of irregularity. The applica-
tion arose from Mr. Giles, the civil engineer, having in-
stituted a series of actions against several provisional
directors of the Rye Harbour Company for the recovery
of 1,5001. The plaintiff had proceeded individually
against thirty of the members of the committee for
the recovery of exactly the same amount, and they were
going forward at the same time. Eleven of the defen-
dants for whom he appeared, as the cases were the mute
in character, and the settlement of one would involve
the others, and in order to avoid excessive costs, prayed
that proceedings might be stopped in all the cases, or at
least all but one, such one to be selected by the plaintiff:
Rule nisi to show cause why all the actions but one
should be stayed granted.

BARKER V. THE PROVISIONAL DIRECTORS OF THE
EASTERN AND NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This action was tried last assizes at Maidstone, before
Mr. Justice Coltman, and was brought by Mr. Barker,
the advertising agent, to recover 910/. from the provi-
sional directors of the Eastern and Northern Junction
Railway Company. A verdict was given for the plaintiff.
Mr. BovIL now moved for a rule to set aside the ver-
dict, and a nonsuit entered on the ground that the plaintiff
had not produced the written orders for the insertion
of the advertisements in the newspapers. Leave was
given to move on this point at the time. The plaintiff
was not a newspaper proprietor himself, but he received
an order from the secretary to get the advertisements
inserted in certain newspapers named. The advertise-
ments certainly did appear in the newspapers, but no
evidence was adduced that they appeared at the instance
of the plaintiff. They might, for any proof to the con-
trary, have been inserted by some one else. The written
orders to the several newspapers ought to have been
produced to prove they had been inserted by the plain-
tiff; in failure of this, he submitted Mr. Barker could
not recover. It was on this ground that he moved.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought there was no
ground for the motion. The secretary of the company
had given a certain order for the insertion of advertise-
ments in several newspapers. This, it appeared,
had been done. There was no complaint on this
head. The advertisements had appeared in the news-
papers, and there was no evidence whatever that they
had so appeared at the instance of any other person than
the advertising agent. What might have passed be-
tween the advertising agent and the newspaper proprie-
tors was immaterial to the case. The order was exe-
cuted in the manner prescribed by the defendants, and
the Court, therefore, saw no reason to disturb the ver-
dict.—Rule refused.
The Court shortly afterwards rose. •

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.

OLD COURT

(Before the RECORDER and Mr. Alderman Ginns.)
Peter Hogan, a carpenter, aged 27, was indicted for
stealing three hundred and one sovereigns in a dwelling-
house. It appeared that the prosecutrix, a widow named
Welch, had saved somewhat more than six hundred
pounds. The prisoner, who was her cousin, and engaged in
the building trade, was requested to look out for a house
to purchase, and in the course of executing that com-
mission he became acquainted with the amount of her
money, and the fact that it was in gold, packed up in
rouleaus, and deposited in the bottom of her clothes-
chest. One evening, after the prisoner had visited Mrs.
Welch's apartments in her absence, she found upon her
return that her chest had been opened, acd three hundred
sovereigns in packages, and one sovereign in a silk purse,
had been abstracted. She at once communicated
her loss to the police, who took the prisoner, and
found in his hat, wrapped in brown paper, 170 sove-
reigns. In his pockets were a few shillings. He said
the money was all his own. The sovereigns were packed
in paper, which the prosecutrix swore was the same as
that of which she bad made the packages for her gold.
The purse was also foiind in his box.
Mr. ROBINSON, for the defence, contended that the
prisoner was about to get married to the prosecutrix, and
was authorised by her to lay out the money for her ad-
vantage according to his best judgment.
The RECORDER summed up, and the jury, having
deliberated some time, returned a verdict of Guilty.
Whilst the jury were in deliberation the prisoner
addressed the Court, and begged to be allowed to call
witnesses to prove that Mrs. Welch had perjured herself
in swearing to the purse, and that be had bought it at
Mr. Morgan's, in Middle-row, Holborn. Mr. Morgan,
however, proved that it was not so ; and the only thing
elicited from the witnesses was. that one of them had
been paid four sovereigns by the prisoner for his trouble
in going shopping with him.
Proof was then given of the prisoner's having been
convicted of felony, and
The RECORDER sentenced him to be transported for
fifteen years.
The grand jury, in returning the remainder of the bills
which had been sent up to them, made a presentment
complaining of the great want of accommodation for
witnesses in waiting, and the difficulties of ingress and
,egress in all parts of these Courts. They expressed a
choonpveentiheanteetshceopmrpolai
perneaduotheorities would remove the in-
The RECORDER said that the presentment should be
attended to.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—(T HIS DAY.)
John Carrol, a respcctubln looking ' old man, was
charged this morning with stealing a pound and a quarter
of shag tobacco from his master.
John Rogers, tobacconist, Oxford-street, said this
man, who was an old servant of Ms, was preparing last
night to leave his work, his hat already on his head,
when witness went round behind the counter to speak
to him on business. The defendant put off his hat,
and the complainant, seeing something of bulk there,
asked him what he had got in it. " Nothing," was his
reply. But the complainant, not satisfied, pulled up
the handkerchief in the hat, and found below it a
quantity of shag tobacco, hot from the pan, which
weighed more than a pound and a quarter. The de-
fendant positively said he knew nothing about its being
there, and that it must have been placed in his hat by
another. The complainant said to him he must at least
have felt his hat heavier by a pound and a quarter than
before, so as to be apprised of the tobacco being there.
Mr. LONG—Unless held up by the lining of the hat
the tobacco must have fallen down upon the head when
he put on the hat.
The complainant said, it was pressed down in the hat,
and, being hot, would adhere to the crown.
The prisoner said he had been now three and twenty
years a servant to Mr. Rogers, during which time he
had not had occasion to suspect him. He positively
denied having, any knowledge of the tobacco being in
his hat. He had been absent lately five weeks from his
employment, in consequence of having had one of his
fingers cut off, and during that time another ha.i been
taken on in place. When he was able to return that
man was discherged, but was taken on again for a job last
week. That per.‘onwas in the shop with him last night,
and prisoner's hat was set under the stair near the pan.
Mr. LONG, to the complainant—Have you had any'
occasion to suspect him before? Complainant—No.
Mr. LONG said, conoidering the long term of service
which the defendant has completed in his employment,
and the fidelity and known good character of the man,
,
the improbability of his committing this theft was great.
As far as any suspicion arising .from the weight of the
hat might affect the case, he thought it was very much
diminished when it is considered ghat the man on the
:moment lifts the hat and immediately puts it on his head,
and again immediately after puts it oft; out of respect for
his employer. On the whole view of it, he would dismiss
the charge.

CLEREENWELL.-(THIS DAY.)
Six Irish labourers, named Duignani, Galt, Malony,
'rowers, and ThonOs and James Foley, were charged
with creating a riot, and violently assaulting several
constables f)f the S division, and a number of other
persons,
It appeared front the evidence, that at seven o'clock
yesterday morning th,. prisoners attacked inClarediscri ndonmi-
-
nately almost every pefson they in
square and the streets adjo.;uingentleman whom he saw
. A policeman coming
up, endeavoured to protect a
Thomas Foley assaulting, when he was knocked down
twice, and the whole of the prisoners endeavoured to
rescue Foley, and it was not until a large reinforcement
of police came from the station-house that the riot could
be quelled, and the prisoners locked pp.
Mr. COMBE ordered each of them to f:ay a fine of 205.,
or be imprisoned one month.
"Rm. Skinner, driver of the cab, Nd. 1,764, was
tharged with gross cruelty to a mare.
James Douglas stated that he owned the mare, and
,ntrusted it to the prisoner to drive yesterday. On
1 )ringing it home at night he (Doueas) found upon ex-
amination that it had been most cruelly ill-used. All
under the flanks she was raw, from the effects of con-
tinued lashing, and one of the nipples wall completely
cut oft:
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was °bilged
to flog her to make her go.
Mr. COMBE said it was as gross a case of cruelty :3
ever came under his knowledge, and he should commit
him for two months to the House of Correctioire with
hard labour.
The prisoner was then locked up, swearing vengetOce
against the prosecutor.

.MOUNT OF NUTRITIOUS MATTER IN THE FOLLOW-
ING ARTICLES OF ANIMAL FOOD.—In 100 parts: bones,
510; mutton, 290; beef, 260; chicken, 270; veal, 240;
pork,. 250; blood, 215; cod and 210; brain, 200;
hadeAock, 180 -; white of egg, 140 ; milk, 72. On an
ay(' ,rage, the nutritive matter inn poun,l of ine'.l.t is not
more than fear ounces. This, however, applies only to
rimy meat, for when dressed a considerable portion of its
onstituent matter is dissipated,—The Plough.