The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 7.
(Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall, before Chief Baron Pot,-
LOCK and Special. Juries.)
BANKS V. HILL

This was an action by an advertising agent, carrying on
buinees at Wellington-street, in the Strand, to recover from
Charles Popham Hill, the defendant, who resides in Devon-
shire, a balance of about 1001., for advertisements of the
prospectus of the Salisbury and Leamington Railway Com-
pany, inserted in forty-three different newspapers, between
the. 25th and 29th October last.
The facts connected with this project were brought before
the public in a case of "Banks v. Goode," tried some ten
days ago at Westminster Hall, when the verdict was taken
for the defendant. In the preser.t case it appeared that the
defendant authorised his name to be inserted in "the direc-
tion," through a Mr. Downes, on the 20th October, and his
name accordingly was published in a prospectus dated the
25th October. The defendant never attended any meeting
of the committee, or acted in any manner; but on the 7th
November it was agreed to abandon the project
for the present session, and the defendant, in answer
to a letter from the secretary, wrote to say, that
if the other members of the committee subscribed their pro-
portions to defray the bond fide preliminary expenses, he
should willingly do the same. The debt in respect of which
this action was brought was incurred under the express
orders of Messrs. Weall dnd Berkeley, the solicitors of the
company, and who had taken an active part in establishing
it ; having, as it appeared, given indemnities to several re-
spectable persons, who had therefore allowed their names to
be inserted as provisional committeemen. It was now con-
tended that the credit was given in this instance, not to the
defendant, or even to the whole hody of provisional comsnit•
teemen, but to the solicitors, Weall and Berkeley, as proved
by the fact that the:r had inserted advertisements, through
the instrumentality of the plaintiff, before any provisional
committee was appointed.
The CIIIEF BARON left it to the jury to say if they be-
lieved the defendant had authorised his name to be in-
serted as a committeeman, so as to pledge his credit for
preliminary expenses; and also whether the plaintiff; in in-
serting those advertisements, acted upon the credit and re-
eponsibility of the defendant. If they found either of those
questions in the negative, their verdict should be for the de-
fendant.

The jury, after an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

WILD V. ROPKLNS.

Mr. MARTIN, with whom was Mr. Wallis, for the plaintiff,
stated that this was an action brought by the well-known
map-seller at Charing-cross, to recover from the detendunt,
Mr. Douglas Hopkins, otse of the provisional committeemen
of the Peterborough and Nottingham Railway, the balance
of a bill of 1,9001. fin. engraving maps and plans for the 113 C
of the company. The defendant had given a written autho-
rity to one of the promoters of the line, to insert his name
in the provisional committee, and the letter having been
handed to Mr. Gridley, one of the solicitors of the company,
the defendant's name was printed in a prospectus with
several others, which prospectus was shown to the plaintiff
at the time the orders were given to him to execute the work
in question. Thu plaintiff did the engraving for the com-
pany, upon the faith that the persons named in the pro-
spectus were liable to him, and there was no doubt that
those who had authorised the insertion of their names were
liable. The company was not proceeded with, because a
sufficient sum of money had not been subscribed, but several
of the provisional committee, feeling their liability, had sub-
scribed to pay proportionate shares to defray preliminary
expenses. In this way 1,0001. had been paid to the plaintiff.
The defendant was one of those who declined to meet his fair
share of the responsibility accruing to a provisional commit-
teeman, and this action was brought against him to compel
hint to bear his share in common with others.

It appeared upon the examination of Mr. Gridley, one
of the solicitors of the proposed company, that the pro-
spectus containing the defendant's name was shown to the
plaintiff when the orders were given for the execution of
the maps, plans, and sections. The witness also stated, on
cross-examination, that there was a managing com-
mittee appointed, but that the defendant was not one cf
that body.

Mr. WATSON, for the defendant, contended that his client,
who had taken no part in the management of the company,
was not liable, more especially as there was a managing
committee appointed, under whose authority the order was
given and the work executed. The Learned Counsel re-
ferred particularly to the case of Low v. Wilson, tried last
term, in which Baron Parke was reported to have laid it
down that a provisional committeeman, who did not inter-
fere, could not be held liable for merely lending his name
where there was a managing committee.
The Loan CIIIEF Banos thought the question in this, as
in other cases of the same nature was,—did the defendant,
by sanctioning the publication of his name as one of the
provisional committee, hold himself out to the plaintiff
as a perAin pledging his credit as liable to the reason-
able and bond fide preliminary expenses of the
company? It would be difficult to say in this case that
the mere fact of there being a managing ct.mmittee should
exempt the defendant from responsibility. A managing
committee was often nothing more than a body of persons
selected by and from the provisional committee, as persons
who were more likely to be able to give their personal at-
tention to the business of the company. It would not be
fair to say the members thus selected should be exclusively
liable for all preliminary expenses. But in this case there
was another important fact A prospectus was shown to the
plaintiff when the order was given for the work, in which
the defendant's name appeared as provisional committeeman,
but nothing was said in that prospectus of a managing com-
mittee. In nearly all these cases there were expenses before
any managing committee was appointed, and the question
would be who was to be liable for those expenses if the pro-
visional committee was not. In this case the only question
was, whether the defendant held himself out as liable for
preliminary expenses by authorising the insertion of his name
as a committeeman.

The jury, without a moment's hesitation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff— Damages 7571. 31. 9d,
Mr. MARTIN stated, after the verdict had beet recorded,
that if the defendant paid his quota of the expenses, as
others of the committee had done, the judgment against
hint on this verdict would not be put in force.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before the COMMON SERGEANT and Alderman W. II uNTEa.)
George IVitiant Draper, 23, a Young man of respectable
appearance, lately a clerk in her Majesty's Stationary-office,
was indicted for uttering a forged cheque for 54 with intent
to defraud.

.Ar. Doane conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson
defended the prisoner.
The charge was clearly made out against the prisoner. He
produced the cheque in question to a person named Wells,
and asked him to give him change for it, and he did so; but
upon the cheque being presented at Messrs. Currie, the
bankers, it turned out to be a forgery.
Mr. CLanKsoN, on behalf of the prisoner, said he could not
hope to escape a conviction, from the evidence that had been
proved against him, ani he could only urge in mitigation,
that the prisoner is a very young man, and that he had held
a respectable situation in the Stationary-office of her Majesty,
but in a moment of thoughtlessness he absented himselt from
going to Epsom races, and for
ultimately lost his appointment,
and s
this
and no charge had ever
offence. He had previously
tt
this
borneihh office f
aeew most then
suspended, the
committed
purpose
excellent
a en
dacter,
of
been made against him until this time.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, and hard
labour.
Ferdinand Weiginer, 21, a German, was indicted for steal-
ing 477 fitch skins, and 731 squirrel tails, value 50/., the pro-
perty of Adam Joseph Gayer; and Lemon Cohen, a Jew, was
indicted for feloniously inciting and procuring the other
prisoner to commit the robbery.
Mr. Clarkson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Milan-
tine defended the prisoner Cohen.

It appeared from the evidence, that the prosecutor resides
in Liquorpond-street, where he carries on the employment of
what is called in the fur trade a chamber master, his occu-
pation being to make up the different skins for wh,lesale
houses, and several persons were in his employ for that pur-
pose, among whom was the prisoner Weiginer. On the 22d
of June Mr. Gayer received a letter, which afterwards turned
out
ui
i s to
out and be
of which n he
washandwritinga
come to a place near Balham-hill to receive a parcel of
evidentlysent for the purpose of getting
soon after he was gone Weiginer
him
i tht
e w,
, f overy
ry of Weiginer, requesting him to
made young woman, who was also in Mr.
Gayer's an excuseservice,to g
to leaveeta
the house, and he then packed up a
large quantity of furs, and took them away in a cab.
In consequence, however, of some information that
had been received, he was pursued, and taken
into custody, and the who'.e of the property
was recovered. With respect to the other prisoner, it
was shown that he was in communication with Weiginer,
and on the Sunday before the robbery was committed he
went to a person in the fur trade, named Houghton, and told
him that he would get him a quantity of skins on the fol-
lowing day that were worth 501. or 601. for 161. or 181.; but
he said he should expect 51. for himself out of the
transaction. Houghton, it appeared, pretended to enter into
the transaction, and made an appointment for the next day,
and he then immediately gave the information which led to
the d.-tection of the other prisoner in the way stated.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both pri-
soners.

The COMMON SERGEANT inquired if anything was known
of Cuhen's character independent of this transaction.

A person got into the witness box, and said he had no
doubt that Cohen had for a long time been the occasion of
extensive plunder being practised upon the chamber masters
in the fur trade, by inciting their servants to rob them. He
had himself prosecuted him severel years ago, and just as
the case was coining on the prisoner's friends contrived by a
stratagem to get the witnesses out of the way, and Mr.
Phillips who was his counsel, insisted upon the trial proceed-
ing. and the consequence was, that as there was no evidence
he was acquitted.
The COMMON SERGEANT sentenced both prisoners to be
transported for ten years.
A/fred Moody, a lad apparently about 18, was indicted for
a burglary in the dwelling-house of Robert Crooks, and
stealing three brooches and other articles his property.
It appeared that the prosecutor and his wife went to bed
on the night of the 2d June, leaving a window at the lower
part of the hause partly open, on account of the excessive
heat which prevailed about that time. It would seem that
the prisoner obtained admission to the house by means of
this window, and he must then have gone into the prosecu-
tor's bed-room, where he and his wife were in bed, and stolen
the articles in question. which had been placed in a pin-
cushion upon the dressing-table.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced
to be transported for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE,
Mr. TVoods, an extensive fish salesman of Billingsgate
maiket, was summoned before Alderman Gibbs, " for
having," according to the words of the summons, " un-
lawfully sold to William Perkins, on the morning of
Saturday, fifty mackarel, in Billiegsgate market, the
same being bad, unwholesome, and unfit for human food,
against the statute," &c.
Mr. Goldhain, the clerk of Billingsgate Market,
attended, the question being one in which the public,
especially the poorer class's, were stated to be seriously
interested.
The defendant having alone made his appearance at
the bottom of the table when the names of the parties
were called by the officer of the Court,
Alderman GIBBS asked why the complainant was not
present ? and no answer having been returned, deaireJ
that the summons should be dismissed.
Mr. Woods hoped that the Alderman would not con-
clude the proceedings without hearing a statement of the
facts, for the vindication of the great body of the sales-
men, and the protection of the public. He had been
accused of having sold bad fish, and it was in his power
to prove at that moment that the complainant had
actually substituted 11. h for that which had been sold,
(a,
bnd
ta
ining returned withback
the
themofin:lso s
money
wi
tit: bs
whichtitut ec,
theli n the
purchase
epe of
had
been wide.