The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

SALISBURY AND LMA3IINGTON JUNCTION RAILWAY.-

BANKS V. GOOD.
This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron,
and a verdict was returned for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared, was an advertising agent, aod the
defendant a gentleman residing in the Isle of Wight,
whose name appeared among the list of the provisional
committee of the Salisbury and Leamington Junction
Railway. It appeared from the evidence given at
the trial, that the company was registered en iho
sth of September, 1845, and it was not till the month of
October following that the name of the do fendant appeared
as one of the provisional committee, and that up to
that period all the expenses had been paid by Mr.
Wheal, the solicitor, who got up the company, who II:id
also during that period employed the plaintiff. It fur-
ther appeared that a person of the name of Downes was
employed by the solicitor to collect names to form a
provisional committee. The name :of Downer also ap•
',eared on the list, but an indemnity was, hoverer,
given to him by the solicitor. He applied
to the defendant for authority to insert his
name in the list of the provisional committee, which
was granted. He had, however, never attended any
meetings of the committee, nor taken any part in the
management of the affairs of the company.
Mr. Gonsort now moved for a new trial, on the ground
of misdirection, and contended that the Lord Chief
Baron, in leaving the case with the jury, ought not to
have left them to decide upon the legal point Its to
whether a party, who had authorised his name to be used
as a provisional committeeman, was or was not liab:e.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he had a very
strong opinion upon the case, and considered that the
verdict as given by the jury was perfectly right and
proper.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DARKER v. STEAD.
Mr. Sergeant
CHANNEL moved for a role to show
cause why the verdict in this case should not he set
aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial granted, on
the ground that the verdict was against evidence, or that
the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict.
The a:-.ition was brought by Mr. Barker, the adverti:ing
agent, against Mr. Stead, a provisional director of the
Eastern and Northern Counties Junction Railway Com-
pany. The case was tried at the last Maidstone Assiz,ss,
and a verdict given for the plaintiff for 500/. The
sum sought to be recovered was 910/. 9s. The sum was
reduced to 5001., on the ground, that admitting the lia-
bility of the defendant, there was no evidence that any
of the debt had been contracted before the 2:1 of October.
It was also alleged that too many advertisements had
been inserted. The railway in question was projected
by a Mr. Morris, who appointed a Mr. Wright as secre-
tary. Wright wrote to Mr. James Stead, Brcdford, to be-
come a provisional committeeman. That letter was
proved to have been posted. The Manager of the York-
shire B inking Company deposed that there were two
James Steads in Bradford. A letter, assenting to Wright's
application, was produced, though it was not shown that
the defendant was the James Stead in question. In the
defence it was averred that the provisional com-
mittee did not meet till the 27th of October, 184:5; and
on that day the managing committee was appointed.
Early in November the scheme was abandoned. Mr.
Stead had never attended any of the meetings held in
the meantime. On the slight and inconclusive evideuce,
therefore, of the letter sent to Mr. Stead, and his
answer, with the statement of Mr. Duckett, the manager
of the banking company, was the verdict returned.
Rule granted.
?ARRATT a. BLUNT AND CORNFOOT—THE SOUTHERN AND

EASTERN, AND NORTHERN JAMAICA RAILWAY.

Mr. HUMPHREY moved for a rule to set aside the ver-
dict in this case, and nonsuit the plaintiff, or for a new
trial.

This was another action brought by Mr. Parratt, an
advertising agent, against two of the provisional direc-
tors of the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Jamaica
Railway Company, for advertisements inserted in
the papers between the 9th and 25th of September,
1845. The verdict was for the plaintiff, damages
800/. It was tried at the last sittings after term in
Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Coltman. He submitted
that there was no evidence against Blunt to justify the
verdict, and very alight evidence indeed against Corn-
foot. The defetdants attended but one meeting, on the
Ist of December—the first meeting ever held and
about the same time they intimated in writing to the
secretary that they retired from the concern.
Rule to show cause granted.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice
CRESSWELL.)
APPS v. REID AND OTHERS.
The Court was occupied all the morning with tLis
case, which is an action brought by Mr. Apps, a gentle-
man residing in Blackfriars-road, against Reid and Co.,
brewers, to recover damages for an accident occasioned
to the plaintiff, arising from one of their drays coming
in contact with his gig, and overturning it, while passing
down Liquorpond street.
The defence was that the accident arose from the
carelessness of the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 3/. 10s.

PARRATT V. DENNASIT.- RAILIVAX ADVERTISEMENT
• -----

ACCOUNT.

n several London and provincial
w p
This was an action to recover the expense of insert •
The plaintiff was an advertising agent, and
the defendant a provisional director of a railway com-
pany. The case was tried at the last Warwick assizes,
ni neg spaers. advertisements
before Mr. Justice Patteson, and a verdict given for
the plaintiff for 1,100!. The claim made was 1,6001.
and paid. The venue
Mr. WHITEST:MST DOW moved for a rule to enter a non-
avvsi.seilkmPorisit'the plaintiff's allegation
suit, on the ground `Marwick there was no material evi-
dence adduced at
.. The defendant on
ierial evidence there. This point
ttwhhaaest trialtrh removed
r eoveexdis pleadedtt
existed
d naa
the defendant denied. Among other papers, an adver-
tisement appeared in a Warwick paper, and this was
the material evidence returned. He submitted this was
not material evidence.—Rule refused.
READ V. lIENDERSON.—THE WOOD PAVEMENT.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved for a new trial on the
grounds of misdirection and that the verdict was against
evidence. The action, which was for an alleged in-
fringement of a patent for constructing wood-blocks for
paving, was tried at the last Surrey assizes, before Mr.
Baron Parke, and a verdict was given for the defendant.
The COURT refused the rule.

PALACE COURT, Nov. 6.
(Before B. BRENT, Esq.)
WRIGHT V. PRATT.
Mr. KEYSER stated the case. This was an action to
recover the sum or 51., the balance of a bill of exchange
accepted by the defendant. Unfortunately the bill was
not in Court, but it had been set forth in the declaration.
and the defendant, by not pleading, had admitted his
liability.
The Learned JUDGE said, perhaps that rule had been
laid down, but it would be
much more satisfactory to the
jury for the bill to be produced, and it had better be
sent for.

Mr. KEYSER said he was afraid it had been mislaid,
and it was only incurring extra expense to make an
affidavit.

The attorney said no doubt the bill would be found
before execution issued. It was a bill payable by instal•
ments, and there was only one instalment due.
The Learned JUDGE said that he would let the case
go to the jury, but the bill must be produced be!ore
taxing costs.
The attorney said they might never find it, but an
affidavit should be made.-
The Learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, and said
that in all cases he wished the bill produced for the
s ttisfaction of the jury, though as the defendant had no'
pleided, there was no immediate necessity for the pro
duction.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

NIPROVEMENTS ON THE NORTII WESTERN AT
CAMDEN TOWN.—The improvements at the Camden
station of the North Western Railway are rapidly pro-
gressing towards completion, althou,:h many months
must elapse, in consequence of their gigantic character.
before such will be the case. The
ground occupied (and
upon which buildings for the goods department of the
railway are being erected) as the station extends from
the Regent's Canal, and on the south to the Hampstead-
road bridge to Chalk Farm-lane, a distance of upwards
of a quarter of a mils on the east. The great improve-
ments are on the west and north sides of the old station.
the wall on the former side being entirely removed, and
a large portion of the field near the Chalk Farm Tavern
brought into use. The bridge over Chalk Farm-lane has
also been pulled down, and a temporary one has been
erected in its stead. In addition to this, the footpath
running by the side of the railway from the lane above-
mentioned to the tunnel has been blocked up. When
seen at night this station, from the immense number of
gas lamps—betNeen two hundred and three hundred
distributxl about in all directions—has the appearance
of a township of large dimensions.