The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-24 00:00:00

HOPKINS.

Mr. MARTIN resumed the arguments in this case,
which were in part heard on Saturday. The scheme in
question was the Nottingham and Peterborough Junc-
tion Railway, which was provisionally registered on the
4th of Sept., 1845. On the 29th of the same month a
prospectus of the company was registered, containing
the name of Hopkins, the defendant, " Director of the
Staffordshire Potteries and Manchester Direct Railway."
On the loth of October a letter was addressed by
the defendant to the secretary of the company, desiring
him to allot him his full number of shares as a
provisional committeeman. The order for the work
was given to the plaintiff by the solicitor to the com-
pany, and this was given, he would contend, on the
authenticity of the provisional committee, of which the
defendant was a member. The questions left to the jury
by the Lord Chief Baron, at the trial, were—First, did
the members of the provisional committee acknowledge,
by the insertion of their names in the prospectus, that
they were to be responsible for those expenses, necessary
for the formation of the company? Secondly, did the
defendant authorise his name to be so used? Thirdly,
did the defendant authorise his credit to be pledged for
those expenses? Fourthly, was the work done on the
credit of the defendant? He would now contend, in
answer to those questions, that by the defendants placing.
his name on the provisional com rnitttee, he became a mem-
ber of a quasi parnership, and that by doing so he had
pledged himself for the payment of those expenses ne-
cessarily to be incurred under the 27th sec. of the 7tb
and Bth Viet., and that the fact of his permitting his--
name to be used was evidence to go to the jury of his
giving to the party ordering the goods authority to
pledge his credit for the same, and further, that in per-
mitting his name to be inserted in the prospectus wa,
sufficient proof, that he was willin to pledge him-
self for such expenses, and that the liability was nat
thrust upon him against his consent.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Is there any evidence to show
that he had authorised his name to be inserted in the
prospectus ?
Mr. MARTIN—I apprehend there is, my Lord.
Mr. Baron PARKE—A man may consent to be a
member of a provisional committee, but it is a very dif-
ferent thing to give his consent to have his name go
forth to the world upon a certain printed paper in con-
nexion with certain statements, such as are contained in
the prospectus of this company.
Mr. MARTIN—He had written letters to the secretary
subsequently to his name appearing on the prospectw
acknowledging the fact of his name appearing there, and
made no objection to it. The Learned Counsel pro-
ceeded to quote a number of cases in support of his
argument of the liability of provisional committeemen.
Seven of the judges of Westminster hall had adopted
that view of the question, juries had always taken the
same view of it, and it would be going contrary to the
commonest dictates of reason and understanding to dis-
pute the point at the present period.
Mr. BARON PARKE-1S there any evidence to show
that, by the parry permitting his name to be used in the
prospectus of the company, he meant anything more
than merely to recommend the scheme, or to say in effect
this is a bona fide scheme, and not a mere bubble got up
for improper purposes ?
Mr. MARTIN—His name being in the list on the pro-
spectus is, in my opinion, an acknowledgment of his
liabilty to bear his part of the expenses incurred prior to
obtaining the Act of incorporation.
Mr. WILLES was heard against the rule.
Mr. WATSON than proceeded in support of the rule.
There was no analogy between the case of a co-part-
nership and the case of a provisional committee, and the
sole question with which the Court had to deal, was
whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and
defendant. And upon that he would say, that there was
clearly no contract whatever, neither was there any
evidence to show that he had given authority to
any person to enter into any contract on his behalf.
All the defendant ever did was to sanction his name
being used as a provisional committeeman. lie never
attended any meeting, and that for the best of
all possible reasons—because there never had been any
meeting. The order was given by the solicitor without
communicating with the defendant, or either with any
other member of the committee. It was well known
that the solicitor had no power whatever to bind his
client ; his business is to do certain work, for
which be is to get paid by his client. The mere
fact of being a provisional committeeman was
not in itself sufficient to render a person liabk.
It would be absurd to suppose, in the case of a committee
appointed to adopt measures for obtaining a repeal of the
corn-laws, or, as in the sister island, for the repeal of the
union, that' one member of the committee could bind
another. There were numerous expenses required, such
as parties advertising prizes for essays, &c.; but it surely
could not be supposed that one member of a committee
could offer 1,000/. for au essay, and by such offer make
another member of the committee liable. A case was tried
lately, in which a member of the Society for promoting
Christianity among the Jews gave orders for a new
translation t f the New Testament, but it was ruled that
the committee was not liable.
The COURT postponed their decision until the hearing
of the other railway cases.
WYLD V. SLOAN.
Upon the trial in this case it appeared that the plaintiff
was not in fact interested in the issue, he having merely
lent his name to the managing committee, and that up-
wards of forty actions had been brought in his name by
the solicitor, to compel some members of the provisional
committee to pay their share of the expenses. A ver-
dict was returned for the plaintiff—Damages, one shilling.
Mr. MARTIN now showed cause against the rule ob-
tained a few days since by Mr. noggins. his argu-
ments were not brought to a conclusion when the Court
ose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 23.
MACEY V. THOMAS.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS moved for a rule nisi for a
new trial in this case, on the grounds that the verdict
was against evidence and surprise. The action WKS
tried last week at the Guildhall, and the Terdiet was for