The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, Dec. 11.

CONSPIRACY.—THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. V. JAMES
BUTTON AND OTHERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and ex-
plained the law to the jury. lie said it was for them to
say whether the three defendants, or any two, or even one
of them, were guilty of the charges imputed to them.
They could find one of them guilty, because one might
conspire with other persons not named in the indictment.
The jury, after a short consultation, found all the de-
fendants guilty of the conspiracy imputed to them.
Corduroy was recommended to mercy by the jury on
account of the example set him by the Buttons, al-
though they entertained no doubt of his delinquency.
The defendants will not receive the sentence of the
Court until next term.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 11.

LAMB V. LAMBERT.-LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COM.

MITTEEMEN.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
27/. 6s. for advertisements inserted in the Sunday Times
newspaper.
The defendant was a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the Jamaica Southern, Eastern, and Northern
Railway.
Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hum-
frey for the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiff witnesses were called, who
proved the consent of the defendant to become a pro-
visional committeeman, also the attendance of the defen-
dant upon numerous occasions at the various meetings of
the committee, when the order was given to the secretary
to advertise the company. Evidence was also given of
the order from the secretary to Mr. Dixon, an adver-
tising agent, to insert advertisements in the Sundt);
Times.

Mr. Aguillar, the secretary of the company, was called
and said, that the scheme of the company originated
with him, and that he demanded the sum of 15,000/, for
the company, on the ground that the company was his
own. The sum of 13,000/. was a very small one to get
fur the sale of a company.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up, the jury
returned a verdict for the amount claimed.

LIABILITY OF RAILWAY PROMOTERS.-DOUGLAS V. SMITH,

In this case Mr. Humphrey appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Martin for the defendant.

The action was brought by Jane Douglas, a laun-
dress, who was employed by a person of the name of
Campbell, as housekeeper, to take care of a house in
Mansion-house-place, where the defendant and others
carried on business in connexion with a railway pro-
jected by the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he was not liable, or if so,
that he was only jointly liable with three others.
It appeared that in consequence of a representation
made to the defendant by Campbell and two others,
he entered into an arrangement, by which they
jointly and severally agreed to bear the ex-
penses attendant upon the projection of the Tours and
I-Tont-kyr Railway, and the plaintiff was engaged to at-
tend to the office by Mr. Campbell, whose laundress she
then was, and still is. She had applied to Campbell for
the payment of her wages, and he had referred her to
the defendant.

A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff-
Damages 171. 2s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 11.

WOODS V. RARDING.-TILE LEICESTER AND SIIREWSSURT

DIRECT RAILWAY.

This was an action brought by the proprietor of the
Wolverhampton Chronicle to recover from the defendant,
Mr. William Harding, a provisional director of the
Leicester and Shrewsbury Direct Railway Company, the
sum of 271., for the insertion of the company's prospectus
in the newspaper. The plaintiff selected the defendant
from whom to recover the amount, he being a gentle-
man well known, a solicitor, residing in the Potteries,
Staffordshire, arid the coroner of the county.
Mr. MARSUAM opened the case, stating that this ac-
tion differed from many others in which provisional di-
rectors had been called to account, as he should prove
that the defendant had taken an active part in the bu-
siness of the company.
Mr. Turner, one of the solicitors of the company,
proved that the defendant had requested his name to be
placed in the list of provisional directors. The pros-
pectus, immediately afterwards published, contain©d the
defendant's name. It appeared in all the prospectuses
published. It was arranged at the time the defendant
called about being a provisional director, that his nephew
should be appointed one of the local agents. A sub-
sequent meeting of the provisional directors was held at
the company's offices, Finsbury-place, on the 4th of
November, at which the defendant was present, having
come to London expressly to attend. A managing
committee was appointed at that time, and instructions
were given as to advertising the prospectuses in the
newspapers. The witness in consequence of his in-
structions caused the prospectus to be inserted in the
Wolverhampton Chronicle among ether newspapers.
Further evidence was called to prove the order given
for the insertion of the prospectus, and the number of
times it appeared.
Under the direction of the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 191. ;
being the amount due for the advertisements inserted
after the meeting on the 4th of November, when the
defendant took an active part in the concern.
At the suggestion of counsel,
His LORDSHIP agreed to certify that it was a proper
case to be tried, as several other causes of a heavier
nature would depend upon it.