The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-21 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 20.

- - -
MAWSON V. EARL OF ISIEXBOROUGIL-MAWSON V. EARL
OF 3IEXBOROUGEL-MAWSON V. EARL OF NEXBOB.OUGH.I
The actions brought in these cases were founded
upon several money bonds given by the defendant to the
plaintiff, for various large sums of money advanced to
him—the first for the sum of 2,0001., the second for the
sum of 1,0001., and the third for a further sum of 1,0801.
The whole of the actions were undefended, and verdicts
returned for the defendant in each case.
The counsel in the case prayed immediate execution,
which was accordingly ordered.

REYNELL V. LEWIS.
The Attorney-General having obtained a rule nisi for
a new trial in this case, on the ground of misdirection,
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crampton, and Mr. Willes, appeared
to show cause against the rule.
The plaintiff was an advertising agent, and sought to
recover a sum of money alleged to be due to him for
advertisements in connexion with the Central Kent Rail-
way. The defendant was a provisional committeeman of
the railway in question.
The alleged misdirection was, that there was no evi-
dence to go to the jury to bring home liabilities to the
defendant; neither was there any evidence to show that
he had ever attended a meeting of the provisional com-
mittee.
Mr. KNOWLES now contended that there was ample
evidence to go to the jury, and the fact of the defendant
having been a member of the provisional committee,
made him a partner in the concern and liable for the
expenses incurred until an Act of incorporation was
obtained ; and when that Act was obtained, then
each member of a provisional committee was to be con-
sidered as a partner with the other shareholders. In
the preliminary expenses of establishing the scheme the
provisional committee was nothing more than a partner-
ship for the purpose of carrying out a certain object, and
each member was to be bound by the decision of the

majority.
Mr. Baron PARKE—In the case of a provisional com-
mittee of twelve persons, seven of whom were for incur-
ring certain expenses, would their decision bind the
minority?
Mr. KNowLEs—I apprehend it would, my Lord.
Mr. Baron rAtiolz—l do not think it would have that
effect. _ _ _

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—If such committee should pro-
ceed to incur these expenses in the manner they always
do, namely, leading people to suppose that the committee
were unanimous upon such a point, in that case the mi-
nority would be clearly liable, unless they took the pre-
caution to let it be known that they dissented from such
proceedings.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Certainly.
In the course of the argument of Mr. Wines
Baron ALDERSON wished to know whether it was not
the custom of some advertising agents to select those
papers for advertising which allowed them the largest
amount of profit, without reference to the circulation or
quality of the paper ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was so stated upon the
trial ; in the present case, he believed, a large number
had been inserted in the defunct Iran Times.
Mr. WILLES proceeded with his arguments at some
length.
The Attorney-General was about to reply, when
The COURT intimated that, in consequence of the
lateness of the hour, the further hearing of the case had
better be postponed till to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, .Nov 20.
On the assembling of the Court this morning,
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said, that the Court had fixed
December the 17th, for the trial at bar, Davis v. Lownes,
and the Court, if required, would sit day by day up till
Christmas- day.
NEWTON AND WIFE v. BOOTLE AND MEIER&
This case was an action for an assault and false im-
prisonment, tried before the late lamented. Lord Chief
Justice Tindal, at Guildhall, in February, 1845, under
the following circumstances :—When the defendants'
case was nearly closed, the jury, under the direction of
his Lordship, found a verdict for the plaintiff,
against
three of the defendants, upon the issue of :not guilty;
and a verdict for the four defendants on the plea of jus-
tification, subject to a bill of exceptions. I'he present
case originated in an action of trespass, brought by two
of the defendants against the plaintiffs. They obtained
a verdict. A writ of capias ad satisfacieudum was
issued for costs, and on that, the assault and impri-
sonment complained of took place. On the -trial, after
the close of plaintiffs' case, and before the defe.ndantshad.
called their witnesses, the Lord Chief Justice said he was
of opinion that with regard to one of the defend ants, Geo
Norman, he was entitled to a verdict on all. -the issues ;
but with regard to the other three, that they were guilty,
but that they were justified under the circumstances of
the case. The application he had now to xnake to the
Court was rather of an original nature. It was, that a
rule should be granted to show cause why the judgment
in the case should not be set aside, on tlh.e ground of
irregularity ; or why the Justice (companion of the late
Lord Chief Justice Tindal) should not ait'a his seal to
the bill of exceptions allowed by the late Lord Chief
Justice on the trial, which bill of exceptions had been
sent back to the plaintiffs on the 16th, unseaTed ; or why
there should not be a new trial, on the ground of mis-
direction ; or a rule in any such other .form as the
Court may see fit. Though the trial had taken place so
far back as February, 1845, judgment lati.3 only been
signed on the 14th of the present month, w hich he sub-
witted was altogether irregular, us the de4ntlants had