The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENC.
ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 7.
RAYNALL V. RAYNALL.

This was a case in which the plaintiffs, who were
legatees, sought to have the property of the testator
divided. It appeared there were no less than nineteen
legatees, some of whom were out of the country, and that
owing to the latter circumstance the rents arising out of
the property had been accumulating for a considerable
period.
The arguments turned chiefly on the terms of the will,
and were very lengthy.
Lord LANGDALE said that it was a very difficult mat-
ter to decide in the present case, because the intentions
of the testator were very ambiguously expressed. There
were parts of this will which were, even to all appear-
ance, not capable of being reduced to any consistent
meaning. A veryl ingenious question had been raised
respecting the executory devise, as well as on other
points ; but he had come to the conclusion, looking at
the circumstances, that the children of the testator had
become absolutely entitled to the estate in question.
He would therefore ran the risk he must incur in dis-
posing of the property in the absence of some of the
parties, and grant the decree, the costs to be paid out
of the funds.
The Court rose at three o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Noy. 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAN.)
FRASER V. JONES.
The arguments in this part-heard cause were resumed
this morning.
His HONOUR took time to consider his jud,

Lent.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
PHILLIPS v. COLLINS.—LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL
COMMITTEEMEN.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA applied for a rule to show cause
why the verdict returned for the plaintiff in this case
should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the
ground of misdirection, and on account of the verdict
being against the evidence adduced at the trial which
took place at the last sittings at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Wightman. The defendant was a member of
the provisional committee of a Geneva railway, and the
plaintiff is a cabinet-maker, and the action was brought
against Collins and a person named Greville, (who had
suffered judgment to go by default), for 160/. 10s. for
goods delivered on their credit, for the use of the pro-
visional committee of the railway. The only question
jury
considered the case was, whether Collins was liable ? The
considered that he was, but he (Mr. Sergeant Shea)
would remind the Court that the case was tried at a time
%Olen, on account of the deeisions of the Court of
Exchequer, it was unhesitatingly considered that the
mere fact of being a member of a provisional committee
rendered a man liable for whatever expenses were in-
curred by the company with which he was so connected.
The case was tried upon this principle.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN differed with the Learned
Sergeant. The case was left perfectly free
to the consideration of the jury. He sub-
mitted the following questions to them:—Did
Mr. Collins hold himself out to the plaintiff and to the
world ae one of the directors of the railway, or suffered
others to so hold him out, at the time the plaintiff sup-
plied the goods ? Did the plaintiffs execute the order
on the credit of Collins and Greville being directors of
the company, and were the goods such as the company
required in its then state ? To all of these questions
the jury replied in the affirmative, and accordingly gave
a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA said they did, forming their deci-
sion on the principle, that because the defendant was a
provisional committeeman, he was liable.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN repeated that he carefully left
the question to the jury, and held that if the defendant
suffered himself to be held out as one of the directors of
the company, and that if the goods were supplied on the
strength of the office he held then, that they ought to
find for the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN-It will perhaps be assnmed now that
being a provisional committeeman is an exemption
!
(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant SHEA said he did not contend that, but
he contended that the evidence was as slight as possible
to show that he was a provisional committeeman, much
less that he sanctioned or gave the orders, Two persons
named Gilbrante and Greville were the promoters
of the line, and various meetings were held at the
George and Vulture, Cornhill. There the busi-
ness of the company also, which was very trifling indeed,
was transacted, but afterwards it was deemed expedient
to take apartments at 73, Basinghall-street, and Gil-
brante ordered the furniture from the plaintifE
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN referred to his notes. Prom
them it appeared that Gilbrante stated, at the trial, that
he was to get directors, and that, if it was carried out,
he was to be assistant-secretary, at a salary of 3/. 3s.
a week, and to have 300 shares in common with the
directors. He told Greville that he wanted two more
directors, when he mentioned the names of some friends
who were members of the Reform Club, and promised to
get that number before the offices were opened. He
afterwards stated that he had got Collins to join the
company. Collins, it appeared, came to the office two or
three times, but his name was in the prospectus as a
director, and on going into the board-room on one occa-
sion he said " You are doing it up very nicely."
Mr. Sergeant SHEA said he called a number of wit-
nesses on behalf of the debt.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—YOU did ; but I thought
they strengthens d the plaintiff 's case.—Rule refused.
BILLS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED.-WOOD V. MITTEN.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA also moved for a new trial in this
case, and for power to arrest judgment. The verdict
was found for the plaintiff. The action arose out of a
promissory note drawn by the defendant for 6001., en-
dorsed by him to a person named Clarkson to the
plaintiff. The question at issue was whether the
plaintiff knew that the bill had been fraudulently ob-
tained from the defendants. The defendant, who was a
gay man of fortune, was defrauded of three bills in the
month of March, 1845, by a person named Barker ; two
of them came into the hands of a person named Hearn,
who brought actions against the defendant for their
amounts, but he had been in each case defeated. He
now produced the affidavit of a person named Rickard,
setting forth that with respect to this bill the plaintiff
was well aware that it had been fraudulently obtained,
he having been unable to do so at the trial. There could
be no doubt of the fact, as various proceedings had been
taken in the law courts and at Marlborough-street
Police-court, which were fully reported in the news-
papers. He moved for an arrest of judgment on the
strength of the statute of Anne, which rendered the note
not negotiable. The Court of Common Pleas had
granted a rule for a new trial in a similar case, and the
question was now before the Court of Exchequer on
demurrer.
The Court acceded to the motion for an arrest of
judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HAYNES V. BUTTERWORTH.

This action, which was tried at Liverpool before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, was brought for the purpose of
recovering a sum of money alleged to be lost to the
plaintiff, in consequence of the defendant not accepting
fifty shares in the Grand Union Railway, according to
an alleged contract. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
Mr. BAINES now moved, by leave of the judge, for a
rule to show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered,
as it appeared that, among other evidence given at the
trial, it was proved that Haynes, the plaintiff, was
in partnership with a person of the name of Tudall,
and that, therefore, the action should have been brought
in their joint names ; also, that the shares which the
defendant contracted to purchase were.the shares of a Mr.
Ainsworth ; those shares were not, however, sent to the
defendant, but to a person residing at Nottingham, and
other shares were handed over to the defendant ; and
further, that the agreement for the purchase of the
shares was not stamped.—Rule granted upon the whole
of th• grounds.

MINT P. PIICHAN.

This was an action arising out of the non-accept-
ances of a number of shares in the Manchester and
Southampton Railway Company. Mr. Hunt was a
provisional committeeman of this line, and as
such, was entitled to receive 100 shares. A short
time after he applied to the secretary for a
further allotment of shares over and above the 100.
Mr. Hunt was residing at Southampton, as also Mr.
Puckan, the defendant, who on the Ist of October went
up to London, and while there sent down instructions
by means of the electric telegraph to Mr. Clarke, a share-
broker of Southampton, in these words, "Buy me. Man-
chester and Southampton shares at 4i or 41 premium,
and allotments at 41. ls. 3d. premium." Mr. Clark ac-
cordingly proceedLd to purchase a number of shares and
allotments, including an allotment of 250 shares, for
which Hunt and the plaintiff had written to the com-
pany, and in writing to the defendant, then in London,
enumerating the purchases he had made, he mentioned
the 250 shares applied for by Hunt (the plaintiff), which
he had purchased at Si. premium. The company re-
fused, however, to allot to the plaintiff the 250 shares
defendant said that he would
hhaevihnagd r e acpeipvleieddthefosrh,aarnesd, in consequence of his not
let him off his contract. On the 28th of October he
received a letter from the secretary of the company
stating that one hundred shares were allotted
deposits. provisional
Some delay,
receiving the scrip, during
ably reduced.
whTt oolhichehivpmelt plaintiff natetsoi
offi
tksa paidvaluep
a member
e the
~i.nas hisnecessaryo
considerably
fo n the
sid
Plain-
tiff then called upon the defendant, and requested him
to take the scrip according to the terms of the contract,
which the defendant refused, and the present action was
brcught to compel defendant to make good the loss by
his refusal. A verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Mr.' MONTAGUE CHAMBERS now moved for a new trial
upon the ground that there was no authority for the
defendant to make the contract, the instructions being
to buy shares, and not allotments of shares; secondly,
that an unreasonable time had elapsed before the- scrip
was delivered to the defendant.
The COURT refused•the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BATTHO AND OTHERS V. THE COUNT B.LTHTHANY.
LIVERPOOL AND DERBY DIRECT RAILWAY.
Mr. WHITEHUHST moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict on the ground of misdirection and its being
against evidence. lie would also move that the da-
mages be reduced. The action was tried at Derby
before Mr. Justice Patteson, and a verdict given to the
plaintiff for 351. Bs. The plaintiffs were lithographers,
who sought to recover for printing the prospectuses,
&c., of the Liverpool and Derby Direct Railway, of
which the defendant was a provisional director. The
defence was, that defendant though he was named on the
provisional committee, had never attended any of the
mectin,s or had any personal communication with
BatLi; and Co. The Learned Gentleman submitted
wu
dE
that
dinththeeopthreecredadeyn,tanofdLaamrubleergtravn.
ted, tkhiett,salhie Coto
be done now.—Rule granted.