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

Mr. WILLER 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. He 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
11 other member of the committee. It was well known
ok that the solicitor had no power whatever to bind his
client ; his business is to do certain work, for
which he is to get paid by his client. The mere
fact of being a provisional committeeman was
not in itself sufficient to render a person liable.
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 an 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 of 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.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, .Nov. 23.
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had to show cause
against a rule which had been obtained by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Crowder, galling upon the Commissioners
of Sewers to show cause why a certiorari should not be
directed to them, calling upon them to remove into this
Court a presentment which they had made against
William Kinnaird Jenkins, bearing date the 18th
of August last, and relating to the construction
of a sewer under Monmouth-road, Paddington,
with the order of the Commissioners referred to therein.
Mr. Justice Erie would no doubt recollect that the case
had been before him on affidavits at chambers, and that
his Lordship refused to make an order to stay proceed-
ings after the 10th of November. The facts were simply
these:—The affidavit of the Commissioners stated that
Mr. Jenkins applied to them for power to build a new
sewer from certain houses in Monmouth-street, St.
Mary's parish, into a sewer called the Ranelagh sewer,
the main seer of the district, which was under the
direction of the Commissioners. The new sewer did not
extend to the boundary line of Mr. Jenkins' pro-
perty, and the Commissioners, in acceding to his
application on the 18th of August last, directed
him to carry it to the boundary : he had,
however, contemptuously refused to obey this order,
although he had received notice that the Commissioners
would exercise the powers vested in them if he did not
comply with the order—namely, amerce him in the sum
of 3,0001., unless he should complete the sewer in the
course of one calendar month. It went on to say that a
Mr. Anderson had obtained leave to build a sewer in
connexion with the Ranelagh sewer, which ought, for
the public benefit, to form a junction with Mr. Jenkins's
sewer, and that they made an order to carry this into
effect, but that Mr. Jenkins had built a wall which en-
tirely prevented Mr. Anderson from completing the con-
nexion, therefore causing a " hindrance and impedi-
ment ;" and he was amerced in a fine of 501. The re-
gulations which the Commissioners were empowered to
enforce, with respect to persons making sewers, stated
that all persons who had obtained leave to construct
sewers leading through property divided by boundary
lines, being separate property, should be required,. when
such boundary was within thirty feet of the buildings,
to carry it to the outside of the boundary line of such
adjoining property. He built the wall of his garden at
the very limit of his land, but he stopped two feet short,
in order to deprive the Commissioners of power over the
sewer, and to prevent any one from forming a junction
with it without paying him. Mr. Anderson built on the
adjoining lands, but he was unable to complete his on
' account of the hiatus of the two feet. He appealed to
the Commissioners, who directed Jenkins to complete
the sewer in two months. When the matter was before
the Commissioners various objections were made—
namely, that the notice was not properly served,
and that he had no notice of the proceed-
ings taken against him. No notice was neces-
sary, as they were in the nature of an inquest.
and the proceedings were merely preliminary. Objec-
tions had been since raised to the following effect:—
That hd was only a life-owner of the estate, and that the
Court had no power to amerce him; that they had no
power to compel him to build the sewer beyond
the extent of the boundary; that the fine was
excessive, and that the jury were misled in
imposing it, and that his interest in the property was
not adequate to the proceedings against him. Now the
defendant had admitted that he had notice of the inqui-
sition. Then he did not traverse as he should have
done, if he wished to urge those objections. It might
be said that an action might be brought by the Com-
missioners for breach of contract; but by the 47 Geo.
111., sec. 3, the Commissioners themselves were ern
powered to punish persons so offending by amercement
or otherwise. He had always treated with the Commis-
sioners as if he was the owner of the property, and the
proper course to adopt, if he wished to get the fine set
aside, was by application to the Lords of the Treasury.
Then the sewers became the-property of the Commis
sioners of Sewers. He trusted on those grounds that
the Court would discharge the rule with costs.
Mr. BovILL followed on the same side.
Mr. CROWDER appeared in support of the rule. He
contended that the sewers were not the property of
the Commissioners, but of the public, for whom they were
trustees, and that the order of the Commissioners was
invalid, inasmuch as the power which they possessed
only extended to the construction of sewers under the
superintendence of their officer, and not to the entire
right of sewers built at the expense of private persons. It
would be absurd to say that an Act passed in the 47th of
George 111. gave them such a monopoly of private
property, without affording the owners compensation.
The real object of the proceeding was to affurd Mr. An-
derson certain conveniences at the expense of Mr. Jen-
kins, who had done all he was required to do in a
substantial manner years ago ; but now, in 1846, fault
was found with him. He was, however, willing
to complete the sewer on terms to be arranged
between him and Mr. Anderson. It was a great public
question whether the Commissioners did or did not
exercise powers to which they were not strictly entitled.
They had the control of public, but not of private,
sewers, except to see that they were properly made,
and did not become a nuisance, under the 47th
of George the Third, under which they stated they
-xereised their powers. There was no language in the
Act to justify such an arbitrary power as was exercised
by the commissioners, and set forth in the by e-law, and un -
less for the public good were not empowered to compel
a person to carry a sewer thirty feet beyond the spot be
might require it. If it was held to be good, they might
compel a person building houses to carry a sewer 200
feet further than was necessary, on the supposition that
the public would be thereby benefited. He then went
on to deal with the other objections, all of which he held
were fatal, and trusted the Court would make the rule
absolute, in order that the whole matter might come be-
fore the review of the Court.
Mr. Bristow and Mr. Higgins followed on the same
side.
The COURT conferred together for some time, but
kook time to consider.

to be taken into custody, to prevent obstructions, and no
doubt to protect the poor man from injury.
Inspector Woodraffe said, the poor man, who no
doubt laboured under religious phreuzy, had been found
walking round the Wellington statue, bare-headed, and
brought to the station-house, from whence he was taken
to the Union in Canon-street, by the officers of which
he was transferred to Marlborough House, Peckham.
From Peckham he was transferred to Doctor Warburton
as a lunatic. The police had merely performed their
duty in removing from the public streets a person labour-
ing under a mental malady. The man had complained
very much of Marlborough House, Peckham, the filth
and abomination of which seemed to make a deep im-
pression upon him.
A respectable female, at whose .house the American
boarded, said he had lately arrived from Quebec, and was
exceedingly eccentric. He was in the habit of saying
that the Almighty directed him to keep his head
cool and his feet warm, and he was obedient to the
Divine will. The dirt and filth of Marlborough House,
at Peckham, had certainly had a great effect upon him,
and he also complained of what was given him to eat.
The LORD MAYOR said he had no doubt at all of the
correctness of the poor man's account of Peckham, how-
ever insane he might he, and advised the Consul how to
proceed to effect his liberation at once.
MARLBOROUGH-ST.REET.
Mr. Charles Benson Breary, a medical gentleman,
living at 73, Great Portland-street, was summoned be-
fore Mr. Hardwick, for an assault on Thomas Read.
The complainant said he had two subpcsnas to serve
on the defendant's brother, who lived at 73, Great Port-
land-street. On the 16th inst. he went to the defend-
ant's house,and on knocking at the door was admitted.
Havingreon to believe that the party whom he was in
search of was in the house, he went up stairs to the first
floor, and opened a door, which he closed immediately,
on discovering that it was a bedroom. Complainant
opened the drawing-room door, but seeing two ladies in
the room he apologised, and was going down stairs,
when the defendant suddenly rushed at him, seized him
by the collar, and threatened to kick him down stairs.
The defendant then attempted to force him down stairs,
and in the struggle used much violence, and hurt one of
his hands. Complainant told him he was a process
server, and had two subpoenas to serve on his brother.
Complainant produced the copy and the original, to show
that he had authority for his proceedings. The de-
fendant, however, continued his attempts to force him
down stairs, and called to his servant to fetch a police-
constable. The defendant ultimately left him, and went
out of the house to get, as he said, the assistance of the
police. Complainant waited in the hall for about ten
minutes, but finding no one came he left the house.
Mr. Breary, in defence, said, the complainant was
told that his brother was not within. Without mention-
ing his business, he said he would go into every room in
the house to satisfy himself ; and he ran up stairs and
opened the door of more than one room. Defendant
went after him, and insisted on his quitting the house
instantly, as he had an invalid patient under his care
who would be inconvenienced by his conduct. As the
complainant took upon him to open the doors of the
rooms in his house, he (defendant) conceived he had a
just right to prevent such intrusion, and he certainly did
lay hold of the complainant's collar to move him down
stairs, but without striking or otherwise assaulting the
complainant. He (defendant) wished to know whether
the complainant was authorised to enter his house and
search over it, on the plea that be was serving a legal
process ? Indeed, his opinion of the affair was that he
was the aggrieved party, and that he ought to have
sought for redrsss by law against the complainant.
The complainant's witness proved that the defendant
used considerable violence towards the complainant.
The defendant's witness said, the complainant was
told that Mr. Edward Breary was not at home ; but he
would not pay attention to this denial, and ho made his
way up stairs.
Mr. Humphries said a small fine would meet the jus-
tice of the case.
Mr. HARDWICK thought that too much violence had
been used by the defendant. The complainant, how-
ever, was not free from blame in his proceedings, he
having adopted a course likely to produce irritation. As
more than justifiable violence had been used, he should
inflict a fine of 205., and costs.
WORSHIP-STREET.

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. Hoggins. His argu-
ments were not brought to a conclusion when the Court
ose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 23.
RENT V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. Sergeant TA.LFOURD proceeded to show cause
against a rule nisi obtained in the present term, calling on
the master to revise his taxation of costs in this action,
which was brought by the plaintiff, a carrier, against the
Great Western Railway Company, and in which he re-
covered a verdict. The defendants objeeted to allowing
the costs for serving the notice of action, and preparing
and delivering the particulars of plaintiff's claim.
The COURT, having heard Mr. Sergeant Channel in
reply, ordered the rule to be discharged with costs.
IN RE MRS. SHUTTLEWORTH.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved a writ of habeas corpus, directed
to Dr. Millengen, ordering him to bring up the body of
Anna Maria Shuttleworth, an alleged lunatic. A mo-
tion of a similar purport had been moved for in the Bail
Court in the present term, and the writ was argued be-
fore a full Court of Queen's Bench, when the rule was
discharged on technical grounds. On that occasion Mr.
Justice Erle was reported to have stated that the certifi-
cates did not enter into the question of sanity or insanity.
These, therefore, were not raised fully then, but now he
was prepared with affidavits to meet that question. He
had the certificate of Dr. Quail, who) had known her for
five years. He stated his opinion that during the whole
of that period, and at the time when she was taken into
custody, she was not insane. He had also the affidavit
of a Mr. Dyer, who had known her for thirty years, and
which also denied the alleged lunacy. An affidavit to
the same effect was likewise put in by a lady named
Caroline Beachey.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—On whose behalf do you
apply
Mr. O'BRIEN—On behalf of Dr. Quail, with whom
she resided when taken.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Take a rule to show cause
on the whole merits.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Edward Billington, Thomas Thompson, and Robert
Chalme, charged with having robbed John Smith, a
labourer of Portobello, near Edinburgh, of 1701. in bank
notes, at a coffee-house in Holborn, were brought up for
further examination. The justice-room was much
crowded during the investigation, the prisoners being
well known as successful thieves about town for many
years, and having plundered innumerable countrymen
of all the property they possessed.
Mr. Robinson defended the prisoners.
John Smith, who had been sent for to Scotland by the
Lord Mayor, to give evidence, made the following state-
ment :—About four months ago I arrived in London
from Melbourne, in Australia, and on the 13th of October
I was robbed of all the money I had in the world in this
manner. As I was going on that day up to
Caroline-street, Bedford-square, from Mr. Hayes's,
in the City, I was accosted by a person having
the appearance of a gentleman. He asked me the
name of Lime-street, and I said, " I am sorry I cannot
inform you, for I am a stranger here." He said he had
just come up from the London Docks, and been two
hours making his way up, and had not found this place.
I said, London is an awkward place for strangers to
be in, but I had found out my destination. He then
said, was very thirsty, and wanted a drink of porter,
and asked me to go with him. I hesitated very much,
but at last consented, and we went into a public-house
at the corner of Caroline-street, where we had some
porter. Before we had finished the porter, Billington,
(me of the prisoners at the bar, came in, and said, he
was newly come from America, and he asked about the
Museum, and then entered into conversation with the
person I first met, whose name it appeared was
Captain Harvey, about American money, and produced
what appeared to be American money, and American
drafts of money in London. Billington also said that he
had an appointment with his lawyer at Gray's-inn, and
he prevailed on me, as a stranger, to go with him and he
would show me a part of the town, and so we all three,
Captain Harvey, Billington, and myself, went to Gray's-
inn Coffee-house.
Here the prosecutor detailed the conversation which
took place between them, from which it was palpable
enough to all the bystanders in the justice-room that it
was what is called " a regular plant" upon him. He
then proceeded—" Captain Harvey having said he
wished to go to the bank, and Mr. Billington he wanted
to get a transfer made of some American funds, I said
I wanted to go to the bank also, so we
all left the house together, and agreed to meet
there at two o'clock. I had a bill to take to the Bank of
Australasia, from whence I was sent to Smith, Payne,
and Smith's banking-house, in Lombard-street, but be-
fore I got there I met Captain Harvey, who, after asking
me whether I had got my business done, accompanied
me to Smith, Payne, and Smith's, where he said he had
just drawn his money, and where he saw me receive
1701. in seventeen 101. notes.
The unfortunate prosecutor then particularly stated
all that occurred between him and Captain Harvey and
Billington, after he received his money. They all went
to a public-house within a few doors of the Lincolnshire
beer-house in Holborn, to have a smoke, "and there,"
said the prosecutor, " they bad a glass of gin each and
I had a glass of brandy," and Billington said he would
go over to Gray's Inn Coffeehouse, and see if
his lawyer was come, and he took his pocket-
book out and laid it on the table, as Cap-
tain Harvey said something about his not stop-
ping,_, and he said there were bank-notes in it to the
amount of 5001. and bills. He stopped away about ten
minutes, and on his return he again said he had not seen
his lawyer. Captain Harvey then said he would go and
get a stamp for the 1001., which Billington offered to lend
to him, and he placed his pocket-book, as a security, for
. his return, upon the table. The captain then went out,
; but he came back instantly, and beckoned to me; and as
I am going to town, Billington said to me, why do you
not do to me as Harvey has done, leave your pocket-
' book on the table for a security for your return, and so
I laid my pocket- book upon the table, and we left Bil-
lington
pocket-book ?
Th e Thewere
MAYOR—And all your money was in your
whole of the seventeen 10/.
notes
Captain
Harvey and I got about
:::le prosecutor.—The
sinp nee
c i
u it.n t othevirr.h
33 or 40 yards down the street, I declined going any
further, but he wished me to go further for a stamped
receipt. I returned, and there was no person in the
room, and my pocket-book was gone. The people at
the bar said the person I left in the room must have
gone out at the back door, and I then gave information
to the police.
The LORD MAYOR.—Are you positive that the pri-
soner Billington is the man whom you left in the room
when you went away with Harvey, and that you left
him alone? The prosecutor.—l am quite positive.
The LORD MAYOR.—Do you know any thing of either
of the other prisoners? The prosecutor.—l can't say
that either of them is Captain Harvey.
A boy who was employed in' Barnard's-inn coffee-
house at the time of the robbery, stated that he saw the
prisoners Thompson and Chalme in the room on the day
the prosecutor complained that he had been robbed, but
that he did not see the prisoner Billington there.
Mr. Robinson contended that there was not the
slightest ground for detaining either Thompson or
Chalme, and that the evidence of the bar-boy, who did
not see Billington at all in the house, would effectually
tell against the testimony of the prosecutor before a jury.
The LORD MAYOR said the prosecutor had much
better reason for marking Billington than the boy had,
and much better opportunity too, from the time they had
been together, and the nature of the transaction from
which the poor man had suffered so desperately. He
trusted the police would not relax in their exertions to
procure the evidence of every one who could state any-
thing of importance. A most heinous robbery had been
perpetrated, and he should take care that nothing should
be wanting upon his part as to the strictness of the in-
vestigation. He was convinced that the newspapers
would in such a case render publicity to the circum-
stance, and thus give opportunities to other persons who
had been plundered by the gang, to come forward and do
justice.
A countryman here stepped forward and stated that
he had been robbed by Thompson and Chalme of a
sovereign by means of a deceptive lock.
The prisoners were remanded till Friday next, when
other charges will, it is supposed, be brought forward
against them.
The American Consul applied to the Lord Mayor for
the liberation of an American subject, who was a re-
spectable person, but one of very eccentric character,
inspired with a sort of religious insanity, and at the
same time quite harmless. He had made his appear-
ance in the neighbourhood of the Royal Exchange,
where the singularity of his address and gesticulation
drew the observation of the crowd upon him ; in conse-
'Mace of 'OM the inspector at l'alice bed canned bin:

A young man named John Clfford, the son of a
tradesman in Fashion-street, Spitalfields, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Bingham, charged with assaulting
and wounding police-constable Norman, of the H divi-
sion, in the execution of his duty.
It appeared from the evidence of the constable, who
had been confined to his bed for more than a week, and
exhibited marks of severe recent injuries, that he was on
duty in Commercial-street, Whitechapel, between twelve
and one on the morning of Monday se'nnight, when he
was directed by his sergeant to proceed and quell a dis-
turbance which had arisen in Flower and Dean-street.
On reaching there he found the prisoner in the custody
of some other officers, through the hand of one of
whom, as he was told by a bystander, he had just
drawn a knife. Finding, however, that his assistance
was not required, he returned back to his beat, and
shortly afterwards saw the prisoner, who appeared to
have escaped from the constables approaching, sur-
rounded by a riotous mob, and he attempted to secure
him. The prisoner, however, on observing his intention,
instantly strnek him a violent blow on the eye with a
large stone, which sent him reeling backwards and ren-
dered him powerless; and, before he could recover him-
self, he was as rapidly struck forward again by another
violent blow from some instrument on the back of his
head, and felled to the ground in a state of insensibility.
On being restored to consciousness, ho found that he had
almost lost the sight of his left eye, and that his
clothes were completely saturated with blood, which
was pouring in such a stream down his face, that it was
with difficulty he could support himself by some railings
while he sprang his rattle for assistance. This ulti-
mately brought up two other constables, with whose aid
he was taken to bed at the station house, and had been
under surgical attendance ever since.
Policeman 198 H proved that at four o'clock that
morning he apprehended the accused, whom he found
in bed at his his house in Fashion-street, having pre-
viously seen him escaping from another constable,whom
he had likewise assailed; and three other officers gave
almost equally direct testimony, and positively swore
the identity of the prisoner, with whose person one of
them had been acquainted for several years.
Mr. Heritage, who appeared for the defence, said that,
notwithstanding the positive manner in which his client
had been sworn to by the police, he was instructed to
give a total denial to the charge, and had seven or eight
witnesses in attendance, who would prove that the con-
stables were altogether mistaken in their identification
of the prisoner, who, although he had certainly been
present as a spectator at the commencement of the
affray, had taken no part whatever in the actual outrage
which had afterwards been committed.
Mr. PINGHAM, however, said, that after the number of
witnesses who had unanimously sworn to the identity of
the accused, he considered that it was solely the province
of a jury to decide upon the cogency of any conflicting
testimony that might be produced in that respect ; and
as the charge was one of a very serious description, he
had no hesitation in committing the prisoner for trial at
the sessions, but would accept substantial bail, under the
circumstances stated by his solicitor, for his appearance
there to answer the charge.
The bail was shortly afterwards put in, and the pri-
soner thereupon liberated.
LAMBETH.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 23.
TUE BISHOP OF EXETER U. LATIMER.
Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH applied, on the part of the
Bishop of Exeter, for a writ of certiorari to remove an
indictment which had been found against Thomas Llti•
mer, the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper called
the Western Times, in the city of Exeter, into this
Court. The Learned Counsel stated that the libel was
one of a most scandalous nature upon a dignitary of the
Church, and attempts had been made by the defendant
to prejudice any chance of a fair trial in the city of
Exeter. The circumstances to which the libel
had reference arose out of a speech made
by Lord Seymour to the electors of Totnes,
with reference to the dismissal of a gentleman named
Shore front the cure of a chapel. The language of
the libellous article was very strong and personal The
affidavit on which the motion was made was from Mr.
Gibson, the Bishop's attorney, and stated that a true
bill had been found against the defendant; and that upon
the indictment the circumstances relating to the pe-
tition of Mr. Shore and the speech of Lord Seymour,
and also some transactions between the Bishop of Exeter
to the Duke of Somerset would be brought into question,
with other matters of v-ry considerable imprtance, and
fit only for the judgment of a special jury. The affidavit
also stated that the paper of the defendant was circu
lated amongst the class of persons who formed petty
juries it the city of Exeter, and that several articles had
appeared in it calculated to prejudice any fair or un-
biassed decision on the indictment —Rule granted.

James Grant, late a police-constable belonging to the
P. division, was brought before Mr. Elliott, on a charge
of abduction.
Mr. Games, who attended for the prosecution, said,
that in the month of January last the prisoner, then a
policeman, was in custody upon the present charge, but
had managed to effect his escape. An application was
subsequently made to Mr. Henry, at this Court, and a
warrant was granted for the prisoner's apprehension, but
the prisoner managed to elude the vigilance of the police
until the night before, when he was taken into custody.
It was not his (Mr. Games s) wish, at that late hour of
the evening, to go into the case beyond showing suffi-
cient grounds for the prisoner's remand to a future day ;
and he should, therefore, content himself by merely re-
questing that the sworn information upon which the
warrant was granted against him might be read.
Mr. Gunn, the clerk, then read over the examinations
of Elizabeth Ann Grant (the wife of the prisoner), and
Sarah Everest, her mother, taken before Mr. Henry on
the 20th day of January last, and which are as follow :
"Elizabeth Ann Grant then stated that on Friday, the
31st day of October last, I left home to go to tea at
Mrs. Murrell's, in Locks-fields, and as I was in the
shop, about half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, I
saw James Grant, a police-constable of the P division,
No. 290, pass. He saw me and beckoned to me. He
had been paying his addresses to me, but against the
consent and wishes of my mother, for about six months ;
and I came out to him when he beckoned to me. He
then asked me to go to some house with him, and wanted
me to get married to him. I said, I'm too young.'
I was then 15 years and seven months old only. He
persuaded me to go on board a steam-boat with him
from Westminster-bridge to Vauxhall. There he gave
me something to drink, and I became tipsy. He took
me to a brothel, No. 2, Gaywood-street, London-road,
and there, by threats and persuasions, I consented to
his wishes. He kept me there, and at other lodgings,
for nearly two months, and at the end of that time I was
married to him, at the church of the parish of Christ-
church, in the county of Surrey. During the two months
and frequently since I have been married, I have asked
him to let me go home to my mother; but he has always
threatened ho would beat my brains out if I did. On
Sunday night last, the 18th instant, he was writing, and
I said to him, ' I may as well write home to my mother,
may I?' lie said, No; if you do I'll stick these razors
through your and took two razors out of a drawer and
opened them. He struck me and knocked my head
against the wall because I said I would write. Yester-
day I sent for my mother, and she fetched me away.
Durinc, the time I have been with Grant he has fre-
quently beaten me. He has done so nearly every day.
Yesterday he told me he would murder me if I said any-
thing about him before the magistrate.—Sarah Everest,
on her oath, said—The last witness is my daughter by
my former husband, Thomas Currant, deceased. She was
15 years of age on the 15th day of March last, and on the
31st day of October last she went to tea at Mrs. Mur-
rell's, and did not return again ; and I did not see her I
again until yesterday, when she sent for me, and found
left
ort
intimate,ma te Grant'sfeuanndldo
edlugftiontrghbsaa.
tried all I could to keep my daughter out o.
Grant
uct
coming
and
idnf
go
mr
tt
yon
the
otf
daughterhbohe
sos re
were
as nh de
to im.
went to live with him, and that she got ma le
*ll be entitled to 500/. when she becomes
that
eGAhrbi
w
My daughter wt
and it was quite against my consent and r s.ehdthawthsa.L;
of age."
Elizabeth Ann Grant: next got nto the wtness-box,
posed Mrs. t
o Everestthe pwe
perfect
thenet t
rupt
hu to
finto r thests
ttewmietnnet.
iitness-box,
iss-box, and
de
and said that she did not wish to proceed further in
the matter; and chest if the prisoner was agreeable to

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 23.

LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN-WYLD V.

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 10th 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, hat
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 committtee, 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 see.cof the 7th
and
eg to b
dBthtoVeitcheete,ed was
y and that the fact of Jis permitting his
m
orderingevidence
theto g
gdotoodtsheaujuthroyriotfy histe
rap
ietdt
igeeghbi
ec
nr eadmi te f
tor
bet he e
isea mse
ret
e,
da n fli n
fut teh eprr,
etshpaete t !ins pweer
sufficient proof, that he was willing to pledge him-
self for such expenses, and that the liability was not
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 die-
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 prospectus
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 PARRR—Is there any evidence to show
that, by the party 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
ithhoabrisiimilstpa7rtoobpo,eb:
bear
nfirphdiseosscehser, and not a mere bubble got up
—His eainngaeiknn tohweledlisgtmonenttheofprhios-
spelaxctilsMAisitrisin
part of the expenses iacurred prior to
obtaining the .&o% of invorporation.

THE SUN, LON DON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEM"BER 24, 1846.

return and live with her she had no objection to live
ith him.
Mr. Roberts, who attended on behalf of the prisoner,
hoped that after this declaration the charge would not
be proceeded with.
Mrs. Everest, however, declared her determination to
prosecute the prisoner, and this being the case,
Mr. ELLIOTT observed that the mother, and not the
daughter was the prosecutrix, and therefore it must be
proceeded with.
The prisoner was ultimately remanded.

REGULATIONS OF THE FRENCH

RAILWAYS.
The Moniteur of the 18th November contains a royal
ordonnance, issued on a report of the Minister of Public
Works, fixing the general regulations that are hence-
forth to be observed by all railway companies in working
their lines. This ordonnance contains not less than 78
articles, referring to the several sections of the way ;
working stock ; the composition of trains ; the depar-
ture, circulation, and arrival of trains ; fares ; superin-
tendence of working; regulations relating to passengers;
and general arrangements. The following are the
principal points referred to :
" The Way.—The stations are to be considered part
of the public domain, and as such to be regulated by the
superior authorities. The entrance, the circulation, and
the standing of public or private carriages are to be
subjected to the decisions of the Minister of Public Works.
The repairs of the way and of the works depending on
it, though evidently at the discretion of the companies
are to be made known to the Government authorities
who can interfere when anything is unsatisfactory. The
crossings and passages on the line are to be subjected to
government regulations, particularly in what relates to
the barriers required for the latter. High embank-
ments, viaducts, and bridges over rivers and streams,
are to be defended by strong parapets. All stations,
passages on the level, &c., are to be well lit up.
" The Working Stook.—Locomotives are in the first
instance to ;be subjected to certain proofs of strength,
for the boilers, axletrees, wheels, &c. They are to be
provided with an apparatus to catch the pieces of coke
falling from the furnace, so as to prevent their reaching
the ground. Every means must also be employed to
prevent sparks from issuing from the funnel, whereby
property along the line has, from time to time, been set
on fire and consumed. The report regrets that the
grating at present in use is not found to be efficient.
Axle-trees aro in all cases to be made of wrought-iron
of the first quality.
" Composition of Trains.—All companies are bound to
furnish a sufficient number of carriages of every descrip-
tion to supply the wants of each station. The hours
fixed by the company for departure are to be rigorously
observed. As the public, in a great measure are depen-
dent on railways for their mode of transport, these two
regulations are absolute on all companies whatever ;
when any exception to this rule is permitted, as in the
case of direct trains, it is the government authorities
who must regulate the matter. In cases of IlY.e or
extraordinary movement from one point to another, the
company is obliged to provide an additional and suffi-
cient number of carriages of every class ; the number of
carriages for a sigle train is not to exceed 24, and this is
to be considered rather as the exception than the rule.
Double locomotives are permitted, as otherwise trains
would be multiplied to a dangerous extent. But when-
ever the second locomotive is employed, the cause of
such proceeding must be entered in a book. No matters
liable to explosion are to be transported in a train in
which passengers are carried. A means of communica-
tion must always be established between the conductor
and the engine-driver.
" Departure, Circulation, and Arrival of Trains.—A
number of articles refer to the measures of precaution to
be used in starting trains at proper hours, so as to leave
a sufficient time between each ; the maximum of speed ;
the precautions to be taken in passing through tunnels, &c. ;
they also regulate the passage of extraordinary trains ;
the obligation of communicating by signals ; and the
general superintendence of the line. Registers are to
be kept at every station for marking down the causes of
all delays. No train is ever to leave before the hour
appointed in the printed lists.
" Fares.—The conditions of the concession generally
regulate the tariffs, but a company may lower its prices,
if it thinks fit, subject, however, to the condition of
keeping them so, for a certain time. As a general rule,
however, no changes whatever can be made by the
company without first submitting them to the govern-
ment authorities. Railways that have been conceded
prior to 1835 will not be subject to these regulations
until April 1, 1847. Equality of charge is to be strictly
enforced, as: otherwise the companies could become
unjust to one locality at the expense of another.
" Superintendence of Working.—This section,'which has
been already in great measure anticipated by the Railway
Police Bill, dwells on the appointing royal commissaries
and their functions. It is unnecessary to do more than
simply refer to this part of the report, since its chief
provisions are already known to the public.
" Regulations Relating to Passengers.—All persons
unconnected with the company and the service are for-
bidden to enter the premises of a railway without per-
mission, or to stand or circulate, or to place there
objects of. any kind, or to introduce horses, dogs, or
other animals, or to cause vehicles of any kind to circu-
late there. Government authorities are an exception to
this clause. Passengers are not to lean out of carriages,
or pass from one to another, or carry loaded firearms, or
leave a carriage when in movement ; the other prescrip-
tions are generally similar to those in force for common
carriages.
" General Arrangements.—No person can sell any
thing within the precincts of a station without permission
from the authorities. When a line crosses several de-
partments the attributions conferred by the present
regulations on the several prefets may be concentrated
in one. Every person employed by a railway company
must wear a uniform, in order that the public may at
once see, in case of need, to whom they are to apply.
Signal-men, guards, and barrier keepers may wear a
sabre. At each station a book must be kept to receive
the complaints of passengers. Copies of the present
regulations are to be constantly kept placarded in all
stations ; copies are also to be given to each person em-
plo) ed, and whatever relates to passengers is to be hung
up in each carriage."
,o