The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-20 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

MAWSON V. EARL OF MEXBOROUGIL-MAPISON V. EARL
OF 31EXBOROUGH.-NA.WSON V. EARL OF MEXBOROUGH4

The actions brought in these cases were founded
upon several money bonds given by the defendant to the
plaintiff, for various large sums 'of money advanced to
him—the first for the sum of 2,0001, the second for the
sum of 1,0001., and the third for a further sum of 1,0801.
The whole of the actions were undefended, and verdicts
returned for the defendant in each case.

The counsel in the case prayed immediate execution,
which was accordingly ordered.

REYNELL V. LEWIS.

The Attorney-General having obtained a rule nisi for
a new trial in this case, on the ground of misdirection,
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crampton, and Mr. Willes, appeared
to show cause against the rule.
The plaintiff was an advertising agent, and sought to
recover a sum of money alleged to be due to him for
advertisements in connexion with the Central Kent Rail-
way. The defendant was a provisional committeeman of
the railway in question.

The alleged misdirection was, that there was no evi-
dence to go to the jury to bring home liabilities to the
defendant; neither was there any evidence to show that
he had ever attended a meeting of the provisional com-
mittee.

Mr. KNOWLES now contended that there was ample
evidence to go to the jury, and the fact of the defendant
having been a member of the provisional committee,
made him'a partner in the concern and liable for the
expenses incurred until an Act of incorporation was
obtained ; and when that Act was obtained, then
each member of a provisional committee was to be con-
sidered as a partner with the other shareholders. In
the preliminary expenses of establishing the scheme the
provisional committee was nothing more than a partner-
ship for the purpose of carrying out a certain object, and
each member was to be bound by the decision of the

rtOwnelPvAeßpKerEs—onlsnt the
ecna soef owfhoamprwoevriesiofonralinceonmr:
that
eorfa.tain expenses, would their decision bind the
would Lord.
have
majority.rmmi
nii
atioerre certain expenses, would their decision bind the
minori t By
?
34M rr
BK:r oon
pEAsn—K Iz plp rdohe ne no dt
thinkit w o u
tl m y
effect.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If such committee should pro-
ceed to incur these expenses in the manner they always
do, namely, leading people to suppose that the committee
were unanimous upon such a point, in that case the Dli-
DOrity would be clearly liable, unless they took the pre-
caution to let it be known that they dissented from such
proceedings.
Mr. Baron PARSE—Certainly.
In the course of the argument of Mr. Willes
Baron ALDERSON wished to know whether it was not
the custom of some advertising agents to select those
papers for advertising which allowed them the largest
amount of profit, without reference to the circulation or
quality of the paper ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was so stated upon the
trial ; in the present case, he believed, a large number
had been inserted in the defunct Iron Times.
Mr. WILLES proceeded with his arguments at some

length.
The Attorney-General was about to reply, when
The CounT intimated that, in consequence of the
lateness of the hour, the further hearing of the case had
better be postponed till to-morrow.