The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-29 00:00:00

MARYLEB3NI VESTRY.

STREET ADVERTISING VANS.—COMMUNICATION FROM
SIR JAMES GRAHAM.—On Saturday, at the ordinary
weekly meeting of the Marylebone Vestry, Mr. H. C.
Wilson in the chair,
Mr. FLOOD, the Vestry Clerk, stated, that in ac-
cordance with the resolution of the vestry, the com-
mittee appointed to draw up a statement to Sir James
Graham, with respect to perambulating advertising
vans, had met, and forwarded such statement to the
Home Secretary ; and he had also to announce
that he had received from Earl Manvers, as
chairman of the committee to whom it was ad-
dressed, the following communication from Sir James
Graham on the subject :
"My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of the statement signed by your Lordship, on be-
half of a committee of the vestry of the parish of St.
Marylebone, relative to the nuisance arising from ad-
vertising vans which are driven through the streets, and
I beg to inform your Lordship that I have the subject
under my consideration, with a view to provide a
remedy.—l have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lord-
ship's obedient-servant,

" J. R. G. GRAHAM.

" The Earl Manvers, Portman-square."
Sir PETER LAURIE moved that the reply of the Secre-
tary of State be entered on the minutes. He thought,
since the van nuisance had been brought before the
public, it had increased rather than diminished. It was
only the previous day. (Friday) that he encountered no
less a number than eighteen of these monster machines
between Westminster-bridge and his residence in the
Regent's Park. He had no doubt but the Home Secre-
tary was quite alive to the luisance, and that in a short
time the public would have to congratulate themselves
Upon its abolition. As a proof of the danger from these
Machines, he had received a letter from Mr. Whitehair,
the governor of Giltspur-street Compter, in which he
stated that some time ago he was riding through Cheap-
side, on a horse well accustomed to the streets of the
City, when he met one of the advertising vans ; his
horse became alarmed at it, plunged on the foot pave-
'bent, and fell. The horse was blemished, and he was
himself much bruised, and the bone of his arm was in-
.tired. lie had been desirous of punishing the pro-
prietor of the nuisance, but he was informed that he had
no remedy. This case was sufficient to prove the neces-
sity of some protection being afforded to the public.
The resolution was seconded, and carried unani-
mously.
DEPUTATION TO SIR ROBERT PEEL.

Just as the vestry was about to separate, Mr. HUME,
M.P., entered the board•room, and inquired if anything
had been done with reference to the deputation to Sir
Robert Peel to present an address to the Right Honour-
able Baronet on the subject of the Corn Bill ?
Mr. JOSEPH said he had not taken any step in the
matter, in the absence of the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose, but he now felt great pleasure in moving, " That
a deputation be appointed to wait upon Sir Robert Peel
to present, as an address, the resolutions come to by the
vestry on the previous Saturday, thanking the Right
Hon. Baronet ,for having passed the Corn Bill." He
(Mr. Joseph) could not, however, allow the present
opportunity to puss without expressing his sincere re-
gret—and he believed every one present would join with
him in that expression—at the loss which he feared the
country was about to sustain by the resignation of one of
the most upright and honourable men, and enlightened
statesmen, that ever filled the office of Prime Minister
of England.—(Cheers,) He believed the Right Hon.
Baronet had left London for Osborne House that morn-

ing, to tender his resignation to her Majesty, and he
thought it highly desirable, if possible, that the address
should be presented before Sir R. Peel's retirement took
place.—(Hear.)
Mr. RIDGWAY seconded the resolution. If there was
nothing else to endear the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) in the minds of his fellow-conntrymen, it was the
last act he had done in his private capacity in support
of the fine arts, and a lamented and talented contributor.
—(Hear.) The conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet to
the late unfortunate Mr. Hayden, when he could not
have expected that his benevolence would be made public,
would occasion his loss still more to be regretted by the
country.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HumE, M.P., remarked that he never gave a vote
in the House of Commons with more regret in his life
than he did on Thursday evening against the Right Hon.
Baronet on the Irish Coercion Bill, as he was convinced
that he could not relinquish office without the result
being most disastrous to the country, which could ill af-
ford to lose such a Minister at such a time.—(Hear.)
The resolution was then put and carried nem. con.,
and Mr. Hume, M.P., Mr. W. Williams, M.P., Mr.
Joseph, Mr. Potter, and Mr. George Daniell were ap-
pointed as the deputation to present the address to Sir
Robert Peel.
The vestry then broke up.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 27.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WIOHTMAN and
a Special Jury.)
IMPORTANT TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
FARRAR V. WILBORZ.

This was an action brought by Mr. Farrel-la master
cabinet-maker, residing in Curtain-road, Shoreditc , against
Mr. Wildbore, a surgeon of extensive practice in Shoreditch,
for damages arising from the unskilful treatment of a frac-
ture of one of the bones of the wrist, called the radius. The
damages were laid at 1,0001.
The Attorney- General, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr: Char-
sock, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Watson, Mr
Jervis, and Mr. J. Hill, for the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case by a detail of
the particulars that had led to the present action, and which
he intended to prove in evidence. He said the plaintiff was
a respectable tradesman, residing in Curtain-road, Shoreditch,
who happened, on the 6th of April, 1844, to meet with
a serious misfortune in the fracture of the radius
bone of his wrist. This caused him to call
in Mr. Wildbore, the defendant in the present action. Mr.
Wildbore could not, from the largeness of his practice, at-
tend personally, but his assistant, Mr. Gillott, attended in
his stead. The fracture was set, and the defendant's assistant
continued his attendance for six weeks, when his attendance
was no longer continued. Shortly after this, the plaintiff
finding that his arm was not in the condition which he ex-
pected, called in another surgeon, who, on an examination,
intimated that the treatment he had received
was improper, and that the arm could not be
restored to its original strength and usefulness,
In the course of time the plaintiff, finding that his arm could
not be employed in any kind of heavy work connected with
his business, and being advised, from most respectable me-
dical authority, that he had good ground of action for im-
proper and unskilful treatment, he decided to bring the pre-
sent action. By the witnesses he should call, both medical
and otherwise, he should establish the fact that the plaintiff
had been improperly treated, and that he had since been
unable to attend to his business as he had done before.
Th 4, Learned Gentleman concluded by calling his witnesses.
's son and daughter, and several other per-
accidelitTam the neighbourhood, were called to prove the
the witeesiZttrttence of Wildbore's assistant, and that
able to use his armre.e treatment of the fracture, had notbeen
beforarrnation of some of these
had
It came out in
witnesses that Mr. Fan
the fracture had taken place, ,„:111.a*e, arm in sawing since
called in to attend on Mrs. puwatz''' ti:•:Wildbore had been
after the alleged unskilful treatment et th'eert eight months
Mr. Gill, the medical gentleman 130 wsa
tnhyatk.ths
wassuibse-
Ind of heavy vr On
great measure
quently
nWeaipldabbloareo,
fduePseYani. a
RI
h f t reat-
on t e rac ure
ment which had been bestowe
and that its present state had arisen from the unskilful
t
to f
on the same side. They had
street, and Mr. Barron followed
.st
of
Professor Partridge, Mr. Merrit, surgeon of Leadenhall.
P and were of
been called in to examine the wrist
in such a case,
not the best that might have been employed _
opinion that the treatment employed by the defendant was
and that it had been evidently very unsuccessful
nt to be
consi-
derable difference of opinion as to the best treatment to t
In cross- examination they admitted that there was
pursued in such cases. They could not say positively ha_
the treatment was unskilful. In any case of fracture, such
as the one under consideration, they did not believe that an
arm ever became as strong s 'was before.
This closed the case fort 1 e plaintiff.
Mr. Jaavrs opened the case for the defence in a speech of
some length, in which he denied the allegation of an unskil-
ful or improper treatment, which he would prove by the
most eminent gentlemen in the medical profession. While
he would prove that the treatment had been right and proper,
he would also show that any damage that had since arisen
to the arm of the plaintiff beyond what would result from
such a fracture after it had healed, was caused by the plain-
tiff making an improper use of his arm. The case was
originally one of simple fracture, and treated in the usual
way, and the projection of the ulna now complained of by
the plaintiff, and which was part of his case, had arisen from
the way in which the bones necessarily joined together,
combined with the too early and improper use of the arm
by the plaintiff.
The - lied for the defence.

le witnesses were then ea,
Mr. Gillott, the assistant of Mr. Wildbore, who attended on
Mr. Farrar, but also is now surgeon on his own account, was

the first witness examined—He described in detail the nature
of the accident, and the particulars of the treatment he had
pursued. It was a case of simple fracture, and he pursued
the system of Mr. Lawrence, or the straight system of effect-
ing the union of the bone. He splintered and bandaged the arm.
In about five weeks he discharged the arm as cured. It was then
as perfect as was usual in any similar case of fracture. It
had all the motions, though, of course, it was not so strong
as it bad bean before the accident.
The witness was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing of material importance was elicited.
Mr. Robert Liston said he had examined the arm of
plaintiff yesterday, and again to-day. He had also heard
the evidence of Mr. Gillott. With regard to the pro-
jection of the ulna, it was a case that might happen
from the most skilful treatment. He had seen many
cases of the same kind, and some much worse,
after very good treatment. The arm in its present state
seemed a very good arm, and appeared to have been used a
great deal. Anything bad in it might have been occasioned
by improper care on the part of the plaintiff. He thought
the treatment of the defendant very proper treatment. He
had heard the evidence of Mr. Gillott, and he thought it
very good.
Cross-examined—He did not think such a case of fracture
difficult of treatment, though the projection of the ulna
might arise after taking the greatest care.
Mr. Bransby Cooper, surgeon of Guy's Hospital, said he
perfectly agreed with Mr. Liston in all that he had stated
both regarding the treatment pursued and the condition of
the limb, He had attended Dr. Edwards for a similar frac-
ture, and he did his best to care him. In that case the pro-
jection of the ulna which ensued was worse than plaintiff's
arm. _ _

Dr. Edwards, who was in Court, was called to show his
arm in corroboration of witness's evidence,
Mr. Jolly, surgeon to St. Thomas's Hospital, gave evidence
to the same effect.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN left it to counsel for the plaintiff
whether they would, after such decided evidence for the de-
fendant, allow the case to go to the jury.
After a short consultation among the parties,
Mr. Sergeant Sxi intimated that he would withdraw the
record.
The record was withdrawn accordingly.
The Court throughout the proceedings was crowded with
professional men, who seemed to take great interest in the case.
(Sittings in Banco.)
LAWTON v. HICIMAN.
This was an action in the form of an action for goods sold
and delivered to recover the value of some scrip certificates
and shares in the Grand Union Railway Company, a com-
pany which had only been provisionally registered when the
shares were sold.
The defendant pleaded that this was a company com-
menced after the Ist of November, 1844; that it had not
been completely registered under the 7th and Bth Vict.,
c. 110 ; and that the sale of the shares was therefore illegal.
This objection to the legality of the sale of shares was
founded on the 2d and 26th sections of that statute. The
second section provided " That this Act shall apply to every
joint-stock company as hereinafter defined established for
any commercial purpose, &c. (except banking com-
panies, schools, and scientific and literary institu-
tions), and also friendly societies, loan societies, and
benefit building societies duly certified," &c., under pre-
vious Acts. This section contained the following proviso :
" Provided, nevertheless, that except as hereinafter specially
provided, that this Act shall not extend to any company for
executing any bridge, road, cut, canal, reservoir, aqueduct,
waterwork, navigation, tunnel, archway, railway, pier, port,
harbour, ferry, or dock, which cannot be carried into execu-
tion without obtaining the authority of Parliament." The
' 26th section enacted, that "with regard to subscribers, and
every person entitled or claiming to be entitled to any share
in any joint-stock company, the formation of which shall
be commenced after the Ist of November, 1844, that until
suck joint-stock company shall have obtained a certificate of
complete registration, and until any such subscriber or per-
son shall have been duly registered as a shareholder in the
said registry-office, it shall not be lawful for such person to
dispose, by sale or mortgage, of such share, or of any
interest therein, and that every contract for the disposal of
such share or interest, shall be void, and that every person
entering into such contract shall forfeit a sum not exceed-
ing 101." The plaintiff replied that this was a railway
company, established for the purpose of maintaining a rail-
way under the authority of an Act of Parliament, to be
obtained for that purpose, and that its works could not be
carried into execution without obtaining such an Act. The
defendant demurred to this replication, and raised by his
demurrer the several points noticed in the judgment. The
case was argued some time since by Mr. Pashley for the
defendant, and Mr. Cole for the plaintiff, and the Court took
time to consider.
Lord DENMAN now delivered judgment. This was an
action for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded
that the goods and chattels were shares in a joint-stock com-
pany, illegally sold after the Ist of November, 1844. The
plea set forth all the facts necessary to show that the com-
pany was a company of the kind described in the 7th and
Bth Victoria, c. 110, and was not completely registered
within that Act. The plaintiff replied that the company
was a company for the purpose of making a railway to be
called the Grand Union Railway, under the authority of an
Act of Parliament to be obtained for that purpose, and that
the sale of the shares was therefore not illegal. The defen-
dant demurred to this replication, and the question raised
was whether the facts stated in the replication made the sale
of shares legal. One of the causes of demurrer was that the
power required from Parliament for the execution of the
works of the company was not specified, and that the appli-
cation was, therefore, too general. The answer to that was,
that the description following the words of the Act was
sufficient. Another objection was, that the replication did
not say that the execution of a railway was the sole purpose
of the company, but that was not necessary. The proviso
in the statute did not require in terms that it should be Ss,
and the Court would not of itself assume that the company
had any object in view. To make that question available,
it ought to have been specially averred that the company
had some other purpose in view, besides the execution of a
railway. Then it was objected that the railway shares
were not goods and chattels. But the Court did not con-
sider this objection to be tenable. The Courts had already
recognised them to be goods and chattels in several in-
stances: The great question raised for decision here was,
whether the circumstance that the company was established
for the execution of a railway, requiring the authority of
Parliament, prevented the 26th section of the statute from
rendering the sale of the shares illegal. The proviso in the
second section was most remarkable in its terms which di-
rectly prevented the application of the statute. (His Lord-
ship read the words of the proviso.) In the opinion of the
Court, the Act did not operate upon a railway company at
all, unless there was some special provision to direct its ap-
plication to such a company, and then it would only apply
as specially provided. The proviso in the second section was
not of the ordinary kind, namely, something engrafted
on a preceding enactment. It was an enactment prevent-
ing the operation of the statute, except in particular in-
stances. The proviso must be taken to have been repealed
at the end of each enactment, and must be considered as a
statutory declaration, overruling the whole statute and
exempting companies not falling within its special provi-
sions. The 4th, the 7th, and the 9th sections of the statute
were not brought under the notice of the Court of Exchequer
in the argument in the case of Young v. Smith, but this
Court had considered them, and was of opinion that they
were not sections, which by necessary inference rendered the
26th section of the statute applicable to railway companies.
The 25th section did not make the 26th section applicable,
and the Court observing that the 26th section made it penal
to deal in shares of companies not completely registered,
could not but remark that it did not extend to railway com-
panies, unless it was so specially provided by the Act.
When the Court searched for this special provision, it
found none. The intention of the Legislature most pro-
bably wad to deal differently with railway companies from
other joint-stock companies, and the special provision in-
tended to apply to railways might have been omitted by
accident. It certainly was not to be found in the Act, upon
the words of which alone the Court had authority to proceed,
and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment of
he Court.

LOONIE V. OLDFIELD.
This was an action for work and labour in purchasing
shares and scrip certificates in certain railway undertakings.
The defendant pleaded that the shares were in a joint-stock
railway company commenced after the let of November,
1844, and not completely registered under the 7th and Bth
Vict., c. 110. The plea set out all the particulars, and com-
pletely negatived the exceptions contained in the second
section of that Act. The replication was, that this was a
company the works of which could not be carried into execu-
tion without the authority of Parliament. There was a de-
murrer to this plea, on the ground that it did not show in
what way the works could not be executed without the au-
thority of Parliament.
The COURT did not think that this demurrer was sustain-
able. Enough appeared to show that the company was a
railway company, and the Court would take notice that a
railway company WAS one the execution of the works of
which could not be carried on without the authority of Par-
liament. The judgment must, therefore, be given for the

RAY C. FIIRST.

Lord DENMAN delivered judgment in this case, which was
exactly the same as the last case, except that the plea did
not negative the exceptions contained in the proviso of the
second section of the statute. There had been a demurrer
for this cause, and the Court held the objection to be fatal.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 27.
RICHARD DUNN AND MISS BURDETT COUTTS.

This was an application to Mr. Justice Patteson to remove
the true bill found by the grand jury, at the last sitting of
the Central Criminal Court, for perjury, in swearing that
Miss Angela Burdett Coutts was indebted to him in the sum
of 100,0001., with the view of making that lady a bankrupt.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Humphreys, of Newgate-street, at-
tended before the judge to resist the writ of certiorari being
issued; and the unrelenting Dunn was in attendance, un-
mindful of the Bench warrant that is in force against him for
his apprehension. However, there is an old problem of
lawyers being their own clients.
Mr. Dunn produced a very lengthened affidavit, setting
forth all his wrongs and grievances, his imprisonments in
debtors' and felons' gaols, his importunities to carry off the
fair heiress of the- house of Burdett, and the annoyances he
had been subjected to by the receipt of numerous letters
coached both in prose and poetry. His affidavit set forth
that he had received, by post, a letter, which ended at the
bottom of each verse,

" For in the till there is plenty of tin."
The same document authorised him to draw upon Messrs.
Coutt'a bank for 100,0001. for his loss of time, Ito.; and that,
finding his acceptance was dishonoured, ha had applied to
Miss' outts for the money. The affidavit is altogether of a
most extraordinary character, and consists of about forty
folios.

I:thieflMolTousrille.ideoßtn::ledlaokyLliningsaid that, after perusing this singular do-
prosecutrix would require time to answer it,
earned Judge decided whether the certiorari
h Learned Judge assented, and the case was adjourned
current, the
is a copy of the affidavit Byrn
issue.
Court of Bankruptcy by the defendant, and whir't to in the
•
barrister-at-law,Peritir. late of tie,—Rgaanveelarighsa-
ksettrhatotoanth-
to,,thßeicihnadricdtmDeunntnfo,r
street, and of the Farringdon Hotel, StoroaffnNd,o.mla
Courts, of
bailli
of Westminster, is
dihdaradwDn rynt,hiins
Bl
virtueit'detotf
street, and of 59, Strand, •hoth in the city and saith, that Angela
justly and truly indebted to this deponall?;,
the sum of 100,00019 by
deponent upon the bank a Messrs. Coutts
59, Strand, in the said city of Westminster, b Company,tii of
authority in writing given by thesaid Angela grdete special
to this deponent, which said bill was so directed to bteC°utts
drawn
by the said Angela Burdett Coutts in and for ropnc=i
for divers injuries and imprisonments done and inflinen,
ela Burdett Coutts, and
this deponent by the said Ang
for which injuries this deponent hath com
ALd legal
comm
--,v
proceedings against the said Angela Burdett Coufts,
and which said bill the said Angela Burdett Couts promised
iti writing to this deponent should be duly paid; but which
said bill, although duly presented by this deponent for pay-
ment at the said bank of Messrs. Courts and Company afore-
said, was not paid or honoured, and which said bill remains
wholly due and owing to this deponent. And
tt this deponent
further oaf that the eaid Apple Hurde this
is a
~,

---