The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-22 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

• LANERT V. HEATH.
In this cause (in which a new trial has been obtained)
the Attorney-General, Mr. James, and Mr. Baddeley,
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Willis
for the defendant.
This action was brought to recover of the defendant,
a stock-jobber, carrying on business in the city of Lou-
,;eon the sum of 4321., being the amount of a sum of
money paid to the defendant by the plaintiff, in respect
of certain scrip shares in the projected Kentish Coast
Railway.
The case, which was in part heard yesterday, was
resumed this morning.
It appeared that the plaintiff had ordered the de-
fendant to purchase for him 280 shares in the Kentish
Coast Railway, which were accordingly delivered, the
price of which amounted to the sum now sought to be
recovered. The Board of Trade had made a report
against the construction of this particular line of rail-
way, the consequence of which was, that out of the
whole 18.000 shares, of which the company consisted,
and all of which were allotted, only 600 were paid upon
by the allottees. In consequence the directors of the
company notified to the public that it was their intention
not to issue any more scrip, and that the company were
prepared to return the sum of one guinea upon each of
the shares already paid upon. Notwithstanding
this public notice, and the resolution of the di
rectors, the engraved plate from which the scrip was
struck off was obtained by some perimn connected with
the company. The lines left blank for the names of the
directors were erased, and the scrip was sent out signed
only by the secretary. A large quantity was brought
into the market, numbers of them were actually sent out
upon sale or return, and large sums of money were re-
ceived from the sale of them. This circumstance
having come to the knowledge of the directors, meet-
ings were called, and Mr. Curling, the solicitor
to the company, was summoned to attend and give an
explanation of the circumstances, and to produce his
books ; he accordingly attended, but with the latter re-
quest he refused to comply. These circumstances having
come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the present action
was the result.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having addressed the jury
for the plaintiff, called
Mr. Thomas, one of the directors of the company,
who stated that he was entirely ignorant of the issue of
such quantities of railway scrip as must have been issued.
The minutes of the meetings were written upon separate
sheets of paper, and kept in the possession of Mr.
Curling.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (to Mr. Curling who was
present in Court)—You are subpoenaed to produce those
minutes. Do you produce them? Mr. Curling—l have

none.
The ATTORNEY• GENERAL—Do you produce the scrip
or share-book ? Mr. Curling—l have none.
The ATTORNEY •GENERAL—Do you produce the Par-
liamentary deed or contract ? Mr. Curling—There was

none.
scribers' T he A TTO R N
agreementE Y
ENERALMr. Curlg—
you p
onion
the sub-
The tion of it.
p
hope,Lord, that ycu
(Addressing the Court). —I my
G —DO
in
will allow me to make a statement.
LoRD CHIEF BARON— I think you bad better not
attempt a statement.
jurMy much aspersed, and
character has been very
fore!. Curling—I wish to offer a few remarks to the
a jury of ray countrymen.
I think I ought to be allowed to clear my character be-
fore me
LORD CHIEF BARON—Since ou have provoked
oaunrde otbhneefdoruercets
aut. ocihueri ;7: re s s an opinion,
I hope you will have the opportunity of clearing your
character
then 3 r 3
you: ot
matters
rysoausr
m ay country,be b
rando
brought
hto t sn s
againstwer

Mr. Fellows and Mr. Daniels, directors of the com-
pany, corroborated the evidence of Mr. Thomas.
A person named
some hundreds of Johnstont stated that he had pur-
chasedper share, and sold them again to
of allotment at 3s.
o
was the authorised purchaser otof a
thoseefMe nrd. articlesant ,°s contendedn onwahc
count of Mr. Curling.
Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the defendant,
that no liability attached to him ;
was
If awhereascob
•' jobber,"
present
andhe
ur
cha sin distinguished
shares
scrip
t e
o'
n‘ broker,"
sk
owner, ''
account,btht
e m f
pthe broker purchased on commission.
action were to succeed, it would make the
dealer in those documents, responsible for acts or
of
every company, and over which he had not the slightest
control. The scrip, now complained of, was current in
the market as Kentish Coast Railway as
such and
such were purchased and sold by the plaintiff ; and if its
was fraudulent scrip, the directors were clearly liable,
and not the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said that
there were two questions for the jury to consider. The
first was one of great importance to those parties con-
nected with the company—it was, what was the true
character of this scrip or share that was purchased and
sold by the defendant to the plaintiff ? The second ques-
tion was one of larger and more general importance,
which was—what, in such cases as the present, was the
undertaking into which the merchant or jobber entered
when he sold a commodity like the present ? Upon
this latter point the question of fact which they would
have to decide, was whether, with refernce to what
had occurred in the issuing the shares, those shares
occupied teach a position in the market as if
every person so purchasing them would be in a condi-
tion to know what he was really purchasing. Upon the
first of the two questions it was his opinion, in point of
law, that if they found that these shares were really the
shares of the company, and that the directors authorised
the issue of them, and so conducted themselves as to
leave the matter entirely in the hands of Mr. Curling
and the secretary (who seemed to manage the affairs en-
tirely for themselves), then in that case the plaintiff
had what he bargained for, and their verdict must
be for the defendant. If, on the other hand, they found
that the shares were either fictitious or fraudulent in
any sense, then, in such case, it was his opinion that
the plaintiff was entitled to recover back the money he
had paid, on the presumption that he was to receive, in
return, genuine shares in the Kentish Coast Railway,
and it would be their duty to find a verdict for the
plaintiff.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 4321. 10s.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY)
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD).
IN RE JOHN BADMAN (JOHNNY WALKER).
This ihsolTeut cam up this day to apply for his final