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

WALBROOK.

Mr. Alderman Gibbs presided here.
Mr. Deputy Watkins, Mr. Ford Hale, Mr. D. W.
Wire, Mr. E. Conder, Mr. W. Rowley, and Mr. T. Row-
ley, were re-elected without opposition.
Mr. D. W. WIRE made a long speech on the subject
of civic reform, and a resolution supporting the Common
Council against the Court of Aldermen was ultimately
carried.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCERY (_OURT, Dec. 21
VINCENT V. HUNTER.

This was a cross bill filed by Sir Frar.cis Vincent for
' the purpose of discharging an order that had been ob-
tained by the defendant on the 15th of December, 1846.
The facts were as follows:—The defendant in his suit al-
lekr,ed that the plaintiff owed him the sure of 2,0001., for
which he agreed to give a mortgage on his estate to that
amount to a person named Leigh, the defendant,
Hunter, being indebted over 1,9004 to him, Leigh. A
power of sale was given with the mortgage, and the
money not being paid, the estate was put up to sale, and
purchased by Hunter. The plaintiff in the present suit
alleged that he was abroad at the time of the sale, that
be never granted the mortgage, but that the defendant
agreed to raise 2,0004 for him, out of which 11:. only
received 137/. 105., a picture valued at 1,2001., a bill of ex-
change, which was dishonoured, and a bill of costs which
was never received, and therefore that the sale was
fraudulent.

His HONOUR deferred making any order on the
matter for the present.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 21.
MITCHELL W. MOORE. - LIABILITY OF PROVISIvNAL
DIRECTORS.

This was action brought by Mr. Mitchell, the adver-
tising agent, residing in Red Lion-court, Fleet-street, to
recover the sum of 1,0401. for advertisements inserted on
behalf of the Great Western Extension (Atmospheric)
Railway Company, of which the defendant, Major
Moore, was a provisional committeeman.
Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Watson, and ➢lr. Barstow were
for the plaintiff; Mr. Crowder and Mr. Montague Smith
for the defence.
Mr. COCIEDErRN said this was an action to recover for
work and labour done in advertising the prospectus and
other documents of the company in question, in the
London and country newspapers, commencing on the 4th
of September last year. He would prove that the orders
were given, and that at the time Major Moore was an
acting member of the committee, he having been put on
the direction at his own request, and prior to the issuing
of the prospectus. The Learned Gentleman concluded
by calling his witnesses.
Mr. Henry Owen, the Company's solicitor, Mr. Few,
Mr. Alpine, and Mr. Hill, parties connected with the
origin of the company, were severally examined in refe-
rence to its commencement and the issuing of the pro
spectus. Mr. Brooke was the projectorof the scheme,and the
company was provisionally registered in the latter end of
August. On the 3d of September, on application to
Major Moore, he consented by letter to be a provisional
director, and on the 4th (the day following) the pro-
spectus was issued. That document was given by the
solicitor to the plaintiff to be advertised in
the usual way. The defendant subsequently at-
tended two meetings, and took part in the
proceedings, though no special orders for anything
were given by him. The company continued in opera•
tion till December, when it broke up.
In the cross-examination of these witnesses it was ad-
mitted that subsequently a second letter had been received
from the defendant, intimating a conditional withdrawal
from the company, making it to depend on the continu-
ance of a certain party on the directory.
The insertion of the prospectus and other announce-
ments of the company, by the plaintiff, in the newspapers,
was also proved.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. CROWDER submitted, on the authority of the deci-
sions of the Court of Exchequer in Reynell v. Lewis,"
and " Wilde v. Hopkins," that the plaintiff should be
nonsuited. The proof of liability in the present case
was less at least than in the first one cited.

His LORDSHIP thought that the facts ought to be sub-
mitted to the jury, and their opinions taken before any
ulterior proceedings.
Mr. CROW DER then addressed the jury for the defence,
and contended that no proof of any contract, direct or
implied, on the part of defendant, had been given.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said the
case before the jury was one involving the liability of
certain parties called provisional directors ; and the
question they had to consider was, whether the defendant
in the present action had requested his name to be
placed in the list of the provisional directors of the
Great Western Extension (Atmospheric) Railway
Company, and whether, in so doing, he be-
came liable to the expenses subsequently in-
curred in the formation of the company. If it were
held that the function of a provisional committee was
the superintending and carrying out the formation of a
company, and if it was satisfactorily proved that any
particular director had consented to be on the same, be
was clearly of opinion no proof of a specific order for
any particular kind of work was necessary, the general
powers of the committee being sufficient for that purpose.
With regard to this function of the provisional com-
mittee, he was of opinion that it was a question for the
jury in each particular case. The function of a provi-
sional committee appeared to be the carrying out and
formation of a particular company; therefore, on this
head, he would ask the jury the question, "Does a person
who gives his consent to be one of such a committee
engage to do all things which are necessary for the
formation of such a company ?" If they (the jury)
thought so—if, from their knowledge of business at
the nature of such undertakings, they considered this
to be the true fuiction of such a committee—if they were
satisfied that the defendant had requested and allowed
himself to be placed on it, then they must find a verdict
fur the plaintiff. The Learned Judge then went through
the facts adduced in evidence in support of the main
question left to the jury. In conclusion, if they con-
sidered that the business of a provisional committee
was to do all things necessary for the formation of a
company, and were sltisfied the defendant had given his
authority to be on such a committee, then they must
find a verdict for the plaintiff; but, should they not hold
this to be the function of a provisional committee, the
verdict must be for the defendant. In taking the former
view of the question, they would have to consider how
far it was affected by the alleged withdrawal of the de-
f,ndatit—the letter respecting which lad not been pro-
duced, having been lost.
The jury, after an absence of a quarter of an hour,
returned a verdict for the defendant.