The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)

TELFUR V. HOLMER.
In this case Mr. Martin and Mr. Bramwell appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humphrey for the defendant.
This was an action to recover the value of certain
goods seized by the Sheriff of Middlesex, under an exe-
cution against a Mr. Smith. The plaintiff, who married
Smith's daughter, claimed the goods as his property, al-
leging that they had been given to his wife.
On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. S. Smith was called,
and examined with reference to his marriage with Mrs.
Smith. Ile said that he was not married, and that the
subject was at this time pending before another tribunal,
where the whole question would be fully discussed.
LORD CHIEF BARON—The matter is now before this
court, and you are bound to state your knowledge of the
facts to us.
Witness—l must decline to answer any questions upon
the subject.
LORD CHIEF BARON—You must answer the question.
Was there, or was there not, any marriage or ceremony
of marriage between you and Mrs. Smith?—Witness
(with great vehemence)—There was a sort of ceremony.
LORD CHIEF BARON--Where?—Witness—ln Edin-
burgh.
LORD CHIEF BARON What part of Edinburgh ?
Witness—l am sure I cannot tell.
LORD CHIEF BARON—When did it take place ? Wit-
ness—lt was about seven years ago.
LORD CHIEF BARON—:r ho was present at the time ?
Witness—Nobody, as I know of.
LORD CHIEF BARON—Was anybody present besides
you and Mr. Smith? Witness—There was another
person present, but I don't know her; and there was, I
believe, another parson.
LORD Clair BARON—What was the nature of the
ceremony? Witness—lt was a ceremony which I did
not consider as a marriage.
LORD CHIEF BARON—WI,at was said or done? Wit.
ness—l recollect very little about the affair.
LORD CHIEF BARON—You must state to the jury what
took place. Witness—Why, we agreed to live together,
that is all.

LORD CHIEF BARON—You agreed to live together as
man and wife ? Witness—Yes.
LORD CHIEF BARON—Then that is a legal marriage
in Edinburgh. It is, in my opinion, clear that the whole
affair is a juggle between the parties. I suppose, Mr.
Martin, you will not persevere any longer in your case?
Mr. MARTIN—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHIEF BARON then directed the jury to
return a verdict for the defendant.
LAMB V. LAMBERT.—LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COM-
MITTEEMEN.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
271. 6s. for advertisements inserted in the Sunday Times
newspaper.he
Tdefendant 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 Sunday
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 15,0001. for
theofowr the
h 0
emiLsP,
ahoal
The sum YDso ,ut
cm:
company.
pa n y .
of
he ground that the company was his
15,0001. was a very small one to get
The BARON having summed up, the jury
SMITH
OF RAILWAY PROMOTERS.—DOCGLAS . •
LI ABILITY
Mr. Humphrey appeared for the plaintiff,
In this case
returned a verdict for the amount claimed.
ane Douglas, a Imm-
anTd
h"Nelr.al‘n
dress, who was employed by a person of the name of
to take care of a house in
Campbell, as housekeeper,
ee te carrieddthe defendant and others
Mansion-house-place, where
itianrutin:Lr thhrenudgehfetnhcly.an
Jan
or if so,
that he was not liable,
The defendant leadedp
by nt
hed businessefen d defendant.
with three others.
connexion with a railway pro-
j
that he was only jointly liable
made to the defendant by wo others
Campbell and t ,
h which they
he entered into an arrangement, -y -
It appeared that in consequence of a representation
jointly and severally agreed to bear the ex-
jointly
attendant upon the projection of the Tours and
Honfleur 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
veefernddicatn t.
the payment of her wages, and he had referred her to
theAd
s accordingly returned for the plaint'
, Damages 171. 2s.
Auld
I

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
WOODS V. HARDING.-TDE LEICESTER AND SHREWSBURY

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, and the coroner of the county.
Mr. MARSIIAM 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, contained the