The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

BROWN AND LANGSIDE V. PROUD.

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 llastings 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 had
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 endeavoured 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 in-
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 th 9 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.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Sir Thos.
WILDE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice PATTISON,
and Mr. Justice V. WiLizams.)
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. BARER.
....

CitaßGE 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
and theparishfortimeagentPancras,andcalledcollector
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, and a Mr. 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 were in
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 the
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 Mr. Agar, of which Mr. Pater was agent, was
in a most imperfect state in regard to drainage and road
accommodation. The defendant, in
tt htnahteguha
setceuopi
tuaubrgdes
gaieniren hesi
A h
as
(somtr.
had
taken, acted from no malicious motives, but from a
strong sense of his duty to the public, a fact which the
tdroe:
judge
siec
Sergeantwt
verdict, and
audnldcdo
Channel)gmt
rhmaante
tn
they
heht dhenyepoewt
tehl
hdetenore
eoss
fhunn msor
consult
whether he had considered the verdict satisfactorily.
Rule nisi granted to show cause against the verdict.
DAWSON 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 railway scheme, called the Oxford, Witney,
Cheltenham, and Gloucester Independent Railway; the
defendant was Mr. James Morrison, of St. Mary-at-
hill, one of the provisional directors of the said company.
In the first prospectus of the company, advertised by
the plaimiff, Lie name of the defendant was found as
provisional director, and it appeared subsequently with
number of others. lie had also been seen on several
occasions at the office of the company, 58, Gracechurch-
street. The latter point had not been much depended on
at the trial, as there was another company which met at the
same address, of which the defendant was a shareholder.
In answer to the action, the defendant denied his
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
under '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 admission, 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 instructed the jury otherwise, and that from
the terms of the prospectus, the managing committee
appeared to be the responsible party, they being ad-
vertised separately from the general committee. A
verdict was accordingly given for the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the present ease did not