The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-25 00:00:00

FAULKNER V. WALLER.

Mr. HELL moved for a rule to show cause why the
proceedings in this action should not be stayed until
after an indictment, which was now pending in the
Central Criminal Court, should have been tried. The
Learned Counsel stated that the defendant in this case
was an inspector of the City police, and in the month
of March last the two plaintiffs were given into custody
upon a charge of forging railway scrip. When they were
taken to the police-station a very considerable quantity
of paper, in the form of railway scrip, was found upon
the m, and also the sum of 1,0251 in notes.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—DO you mean genuine notes?
Mr. HILL said that the notes were genuine Bank of
England notes. These persons were taken before the
magistrates, and were remanded from time to
time, until, in the month of June, they
were committed to take their trial upon the
charge of forgery. The Bank notes and railway
scrip were handed over to the defendant, as being one of
the inspectors, to be produced upon th, trial. Mr.
Allerrnan Gibbs made that order. The ial was post-
poned, fur some reason, until the month of October, and
during the interval the plaintiffs were admitted to bail.
At the October sessions the plaintiff Faulkner surren-
dered to take his trial, but the other plaintiff; Fabian,
did not surrender, and his recognisances were estreated.
Faulkner was acquitted, but the Learned Judge, after
the trial, directed that 3601. should be paid out of the
1,0251. to the prosecutor, as he was enabled to identify
that much of the notes as his own. The police were at
present in search of Fabian, but Faulkner had com•
menced an action against the inspector to recover the
railway scrip and the remaining bank•notes, both of
which it would be absolutely necessary to produce on
the trial of Fabian, should he be taken. Under these
circumstances, he (Mr. Hill) was intrusted to apply for
an order to stay proceedings in the action until Fabian
was tried.—Application granted.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.
REYNELL V. LEWIS.
WYLD V. HOPKINS.

Upon entering the Court,ceeded to give judgment in these cases,
the LORD Cu E
as
BIloAwls10:N pro.
us we think the plaintiffs seek to In these cases a hich have latelyx
übpeoenn
tahre4dueerdenbdeafonit:
the liabilitytr of contracts,
questionpwhether
n andsuch
e
or his age.nt.
ofe tphreesed Courtor i sl m,
This is a ques
contract was
i%tvhasthme made by
,the defendant himself, or his
tionevid
evidence
o fact
beforefiir bt
oh e Jour r y
t, h for o the
thrheicno,nsaildideraitti(i'vniloli
in order to show that the defendant had
plain-
tiff to produce the proof in all these cases,
en-
tered into such contract, expressed or implied
expressly by making a contract with the plaintiff, im-
plied by giving the order to him under such circurn-.
stances as would warrant the plaintiff in concluding, 13)
reasonable inference, that he was liable ; and if the con-
tract is not proved to be made with the defendant per-
' sonally it must be proved to be made with an authorised
agent on his behalf. In the case of a number of actions
brought against provisional committeemen it often
happens that the contract is made by a third party, and
in such cases the point to be decided is, whether such
third person was the agent for the defendant for the
purpose of making such contracts, and whether the
plaintiff entered into the contract as such. Again, the
order may be conveyed by an express authority on the
part of the defendant with such third person to make
such contract on his behalf, but he may net give him a
a general authority to make general contracts on his
behalf, or it may be enough to show that a general rule
exists. In point of law, this would be sufficient to prove
the affirmative on the part of the plaintiff, as, for
instance, in the case of a partner, when their
relations are complete, one becomes, in law,
the agent of the other in all purposes, which are
necessary for their mutual interests, or the relation of
husband and wife, in which the law considers that the
husband makes his wife the agent, and in all cases the
husband is bound by such contract. This agency may
be constituted by the immediate action of the parties,
that is, by merely giving authority to the agent, or re-
presenting any relation to exist between the parties
similar to that which the law recognises and makes, or
by representing the defendant to the plaintiff as the
party making the contract, and that such third person
was his recognised agent, or that he had relations to
create him such ; and if the plaintiff really makes the
contract upon the faith of the defendant's representa-
tions, the defendant is then made the party to such
contract, and the representatives of authority upon the
part of the third party pro ad hoc, assumes that the re-
lations of agent are established between them. These
representations may be made direct to the plaintiff, or
made so public as to have reached him, or it may be
made by word or by actual contract. In all such cases
it will be for the jury to find upon the evidence with the
assistance of the judge who may try the case. There are
few, if any, of the cases which have come before us in
which the contract is entered into directly by the de-
fendant, but they have been entered into by other par-
ties. In one case it was attempted to be proved by a
conversation in which the defendant expressed his entire
satisfaction at the expenditure which had been going on,
he said the expenses were moderate, and that was evi-
dencetotrie w
fuhtt
thanecoohrideitngpoitiol
otfh em.rc.i
to go to the jury, and entitled to more
irctiamr
tsitnaps c easr g
uo-f
h
rameanntcslo-nasst.ittluitaetd damn raeslasotizaitionfna
(pn.rogvninsisoincaolpcuormtnmeristhteiep-,
in which he was an agent for all the purposes, and liable
for all the expense s inc;dent to the preliminary proceed-
ings in obtaining an Act of incorporation; and that the
mere fact of his being a co-promoter was evidence to go
to a jury, that he Mid authorised the contracts
to be entered into, and insisted that if there
wete no other evidence than the mere fact of
the defendant having joined the provisional committee,
yet that that was sufficlent evidence to go to a jury to
prove the liability of the defendant, and his being a
party to the contract, and that authority was given by
the clefenclft% to every ether previsicnial ciPapiitteeman