The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

diction of the Cinque Ports, and he thought this was a
great defect in the Bill.
Mr. T. M. GIBSON said the 13111 would not in any
way affect the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, and he
trusted therefore the Hon. Gentleman would allow it to
pass through Committee without opposition.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill. The
whole of the clauses were agreed to, end the report was
ordered to be brought up on Friday (this day).
The House then adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 23.

(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.)

This was an action brought against the defendant as
one of the provisional clmmittee Of a projected railway,
called the Liverpool and Derby Direct Railway, to re-
cover the sum of 411. odd for printing the prospectuses
and other papers connected with the undertaking.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Peacock were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Montague
Chambers for the defendant.

The evidence in support of the case for the plaintiff
was of a very slight character, and principally consisted
in the facts that his name appeared on the printed
prospectuses as one of the provisional committee, and
that upon reference being made to him as to the re-
spectability of a party who was applying for shares, he
wrote the word " good" upon the document sent to him.
It appeared that the scheme of the railway in question
was projected by an attorney, named Mount; and he ad-
mitted, on cross-examination, that the defendant had
never given any written authority for his name to be
placed upon the list of the provisional committee, but
that he received that authority from a person whom he
supposed acted for the defendant, and who, he admitted,
was in Court, although he was not called as a witness.
Ide likewise admitted that the defendant, who, it appears,
is a barrister, never attended any meeting, or took the
slightest share in any proceeding connected with the
company ; and, also, that he was now acting as an at-
torney for the plaintiff in the present action.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE made an able address to the jury,
pointing out the weakness of the case for the plaintiff,
and called upon them not to sanction such an attempt
as the present to obtain money from the defendant,
when he had in no wise rendered himself responsible for
the payment of it. _ _ _

Mr. Baron PARKE briefly summed up, and left it to
the jury to say whether, upon the very meagre evidence
that had been produced, and taking into consideration
the fact that if -the defendant had really sanctioned the
placing of his name upon the provisional committee, it
was admitted there was a witness in Court, who might
have been called to prove it, they could come to the
conclusion that the defendant was responsible for the
payment of the claim made upon him by the plaintiff.
The jury, after deliberating a few minutes, returned
a verdict fur the defendant.

Mr. Baron PA MEE said he thought this was a proper
verdict. Persons ought not to be made liable for such
matters, unless better evidence was offered than in the
present case.
HOWDEN V. rromiEs.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bramwell were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channell and ➢Tr. Peacock
for the def ndant.

Mr. CHAMBERS said this was another railway case
but he believed the jury would see that the present claim
was made under very different circumstances to the one
that had just been disposed of. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to state the circumstances under which
the action was brought. The plaintiff he described as
being a writer to the Signet, in Scotland, who also
carried on the profession of a parliamentary agent in
London : and he sought to recover from the defendant,
as one of the provisional committee of a projected rail-
way, called the Hull, Birmingham, and Swansea Junc•
tion Railway company, the sum of 1361. for services as
a parliamentary agent in connexion with that Company.
It appeared that the company was projected in the latter
end of 1845, by a solicitor named Eldershaw, and the
defendant, who was a boiler maker, and a person of in-
fluence in the town of Hull, gave his written consent to
act as one of the provisional committee, and he was
represented as such in the form prescribed by the Act
of Parliament. Tne panic of last year had the effect
upon this scheme which it had upon so many others, and
the London committee resolved to wind up the affairs
of the company ; and upon examining the accounts, it
was found that if every member of this committee paid
down the sum of 25/, it would raise a sufficient amount
to pay off the whole claims upon the company; and the
London Committee agreed to contribute their share,
but it appeared that the defendant and the other mem-
bers of the Hull Committee refused to accede to this
arrangemet, and Mr. Chambers admitted that in conse-
quence of the refusal of these gentlemen to contribute
what was considered there quota towards the liabilities
of the defunct company, that the secretary and solicitor
were assisting the plaintiff in his action to compel the
defendant to pay the whole amount for which he was
legally responsible in his capacity as one of the provi-
sional committee.

The various documents were put in to show the posi-
tion of the defendant in connexion with the company,
and evidence was likewise adduced to show that the
charges made by the plaintiff were fair and reasonable.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL addressed the jury for the
defendant, and said that this was an attempt to obtain
money from Mr. Holmes, and a number of other gen •
tlemen residing at Hull, without—as he had no doubt he
should be able to satisfy the jury—the slightest ground
fur the claim that was made upon them. The specula-
tion in question, as they had heard, was projected by
Mr. Elderton, the attorney, who, thinking it would be
advantageous to the scheme that it should have the sup-
port of persons of influence in the town of Hull, took
proceedings to obtain these signatures to the prospectus
that was issued to the public. He in the first place ap-
plied to Mr. Jones, the Mayor of Hull, and asked for his
support to the scheme, and in that communication he
expressly stated that if the Mayor would allow his name
to be placed upon the list of the committee, and would
use his influence to induce other responsible persons in
the town to do the same, that the whole of the parties
should be guaranteed from all liability with regard to the
expenses that might be incurred.
Mr. CHAMBERS interposed, and submitted to the Court
that such proof as this would not affect the claim of the
present plaintiff.
Mr. Baron PARKE expressed an opinion that the evi-
dence suggested by Mr. Sergeant Cbannell would be
perfectly relevant. The question the jury would have
to consider was, whether the defendant intended to
make himself responsible, or whether he had merely
consented that his name should be placed upon the list
of the Committee under the guarantee that he should
not be called upon for any share of the expenses.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL then proceeded to state that
it was entirely owing to the representations of Mr.
Elderton, and the guarantee given him, that Mr. Jones,
and the defendant, and the other gentlemen living at
Hull, consented to allow their names to be placed upon
the provisional committee, and they never took any
share in the subsequent proceedings. Eventually, how-
ever, a demand was made upon each of them for the
sum of 251., which would have amounted altogether to
between two and three thousand pounds; and when they
inquired how this sum was to be disposed of, and wished
to see the accounts, they were not allowed to see them, but
were told that after the money was paid they would be in-
formed how the accounts stood. They, of course,
objected to pay any money under such circumstances,
and when the jury had seen the documents he should
lay before them, he had very little doubt that they would
be of opinion that the defendant was entitled to a
verdict.
The Learned Counsel then put in the letters he re-
ferred to, bearing out the statement as to the nature of
the original connexions between the parties, and like-
wise the guarantee with regard to the expenses that
was given by Mr. Elderton. It did not appear, however,
that the present defendant was aware originally of the
existence of a guarantee and it seemed that he signed the
prospectus and gave his written consent to act as one of
the committee before he was aware of its existence. It
was part of the defendant's case also, that the plaintiff
was not a regular parliamentary agent, although he
had taken upon himself to act in that capacity; and that,
therefore, he was not entitled to claim for a number of
the items that appeared in his account.
Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, and placed all
the material facts clearly before the jury, they returned
a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 501.

lIARTNOLL V. CURLING.
This action was disposed of late on
"Wednesday night.
The plaintiff is the proprietor of a newspaper, pub-
li,hed at Greenock, and be sought
to recover from the
defendant, who was the solicitor to and projector of
several lines of railway in Kent, the sum of 691. for ad-
vertising parliamentary notices connected with those
schemes.
Mr. Sergeant Channel' and Mr. Lush were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Chambers for
the defendant.
The fact of the insertion of the advertisements was
proved. but on behalf of the defendant it was argued that
as solicitor to a company he was not liable. In the case
of one of the " Companies" there did not appear to be
any other person mentioned but the defendant, as tio•
licitor ; but in the others provisional committees were
appointed, and their names appeared in the prospectuses.
Mr. Baron PARKE, in summing up, said that in the
cases where no provisional committee had been ap-
pointed, and the defendant bad taken upon himself to
order the insertion of the advertisements, he was clearly
liable ; but in the other case, it was for the jury to say,
upon the facts, whether they considered the defendant
had made himself personally responsible, or whether he
was merely acting as the agent of the committee.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 331., striking
out all that portion of the account incurred by the defen-
dant as solicitor where a provisional committee had
been appointed.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Thomas Constant. 14, George Gower, 12, Edward
Cansdell, I, and Felix Finn, 11, were indicted for un-
lawfally placing (livers pieces of wood and iron upon the
rails of the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway, and
thereby endangering the safety of the passengers travel-
ling upon the said railway.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Baldwin prosecuted, and Mr.
Mellor appeared for the defendants.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel, and the
evid2nce that was adduced, it appeared that, on the
evening of the 13th July, a train started from Canter-
bury to Whitstable at seven o'clock in the evening, and
when it had proceeded a short distance, the guard dis •
covered that an iron chair had been placed upon one of the
rails, the engine passing overit before it could be stopped,
but fortunately no injury was effected. The guard then
proceeded along the rail, and discovered an iron bar
stuck in the ground between the rails, and a number of
other chairs were also found at intervals placed upon
the rails for a distaw of nearly a mile; and, but for the
timely discovery of the obstructions by the guard, very
serious consequences might five resulted. Evidence
was now given to show that all the defendants were seen
upou the railway about tin time in restion, &Ad &IVO!