The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-24 00:00:00

____............mk ........ •••
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BEACH, Dec. 23.
ISOOPER V. LAMB.
This was an action brought by Mr. Hooper, the well-
known advertisement agent, to recover from Mr. Lamb.
one of the provisional committee of the Great Western,
Eastern Counties, and Ipswich and -Southampton Rail-
ways, 61/., but virtually for 201., that being his share of
the expenses incurred for advertising in the different
daily and weekly newspapers.
Mr. Martin, Q.C., and another Learned Gentleman,
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr.
Warren, for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN opened the case, and stated that several
members of the committee had subscribed their quota,
and discharged part of the claim.
Captain James Patrick M`Dougall, one of the pro-
visional committeemen, proved having on the 20th of
September, 184 E, received Mr. Lamb's consent to insert
his name in the prospectus of the company.
Mr. Graham, the secretary, produced the minute-
books, and proved that the managing committee directed
him to give Mr. Hooper instructions to publish the ad-
vertisement. The plaintiff had received 3001. from the
company, and a balance of 61Z was still due. The first
general meeting of the committee was held on the 15th
September, 1845, and at that meeting a committee of
management was appointed. At this period the defend-
ant had not become a provisional committeeman.
Mr. Burr contended that there was no evidence to fix
the defendant with this liability. He had been sum-
moned to no meeting, attended none, and had no com-
munication with any parties connected with the scheme.
All he had done was merely to give his consent to his
name being added to the provisional committee. The
authority for the insertion of the advertisements pro-
ceeded from the managing committee appointed on the
15th September, which was before the defendant became
connected with the company. Mr. Justice Cresswell had
held that, in such a case, there was no evidence of lia-
bility, and, therefore, he submitted, under his Lord-
ship's direction, that the defendant was entitled to their
verdict.

Lord DENMAN said the first consideration in such
cases was to do justice between the parties, and it would
be for the jury to say, whether the plaintiff bad been
employed by the defendant to do the particular work ho
did. He apprehended that the defendant was aware,
when he gave authority to have his name put down as a
provisional committeeman, that it would be made
known to the world in that character. Then
they would consider what inference a person employed
by the undertaking had a right to draw with respect
to the liability of the defendant, and whether the acts of
the managing committee in the formation of the com-
pany were binding upon all. The prospectus held out
that it was a desirable investment, and proceeded to say
that powers would be applied for in the Bill to allow in-
terest at the rate of 4k per cent., &c. All men
understood by that, that a Bill for the formation of the
company was to be applied for in Parliament. So, in
the same way, if the words provisional committee were
used, it meant for the purpose of forming a company,
and therefore it was inferred that a person
who had become a member sought persons
who were ready to form contracts to do the ne-
cessary works. If advertisements were essential to the
formation of a company, and these advertisements must
be ordered, not by the whole of the committee, but as
the necessities of the case required, their verdict would
be for the plaintiff, because he had a right to look to
every person on the provisional committee as persons
liable for the work he had done.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff for 611., with
execution only for 201., being the defendant's share in
the transaction. A bill of exceptions was tendered by
the counsel for the defendant.

HOOPER V. BYROM.-1100PER V. I:7PFILL.
These were actions of a similar nature, the defendants
being two provisional committeemen in the same
company.

The -parties agreed to a similar verdict. A bill of
exceptions was tendered as in the last case.

REED BROTHERS V. SOMERS.
The plaintiffs in this case are wine-merchants, in
Suffolk-street, and the defendant, Mr. Patrick Somers,
M.P. for Sligo.
Mr. MeLrewether appeared for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. HumfFey, Q.C., for the defendant.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 81L for
wines supplied to the plaintiff in April and July
of last year. The defence set up was that.the defendant
purchased the wines with the express understanding that
they were not to be paid for until the Christmas follow.
ing, whereas on the 10th September the defendant,
without having received any previous intimation by letter
or otherwise, was served with a writ for the amount.
A friend of Mr. Somers, who was allowed a commission
on the wines- he sold for the plaintiffs, was called, and
stated that he had induced the defendant to purchase
the wines on such an understanding.
Lord DENNA.N left it to the jury to say whether they
were of opinion that the wines were sold to be paid on
request, or on an understanding that payment would not
be required until Christmas next.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
His LORDSHIP intimated to the jury that their labours
were at a close.
The Court then rose, and will not sit again until next
term.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 23.
This being the last day of the sittings after term, the
Lord Chief Justice, who presided, took common jury
causes, and disposed of several undefended ones. The
remainder of the day was occupied with a horse case,
arising out of a sale at Aldridge's repository, the
.particu-
lars of which were of interest only to the parties con.
corned.