The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-18 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THISDAY.)

-
THOMSON AND ANOTHER V. LACK.
This was an action brought under a covenant to re-
cover a sum of money from one of the co-sureties of an
annuitant. The defendant pleaded that at the time the
action was brought he was under the protection of the
Bankruptcy Act, having received a protection under its
provisions, and that he had received a release from his
obligation under the covenant, from the other co-trustee.
To these pleas the plaintiff demurred.
Mr. Sergeant Jones was heard against the demurrer,
and Mr. Sergeant Channel for the plaintiff.
The argument turned on the construction of the
Bankruptcy Act, and -whether or not the amended
statute Bth and 9th Victoria was retrospective in its
operation.
The COURT held that the statute Bth and 9th Victoria
was not retrospective, and that defendant's plea was bad
in this respect also that the plea was defective in not
setting forth whether the defendant had received his dis-
charge from the Bankruptcy Court at the time when
the action was brought. Judgment therefore was given
for the plaintiff.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL).
BARKER V. KEMP—NORTH WESTERN TRUNK RAILWAY.
This was an action, brought by Mr. Charles Barker,
the advertising agent, to recover the sum of 4031. 7s.
from Thomas Reginald Kemp, one of the provisional di-
rectors of the North-Western Trunk Railway Company,
for inserting the advertisements of the said company in
various London and local newspapers, between the Ist of
October, 1845, and the 30th of November in the same
year. The defendant pleaded not indebted, and that he
was not an acting member of the committee when the al-
!edged debt was contracted.
Mr. James and Mr. Parry appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Knowles for the defence.
Mr. JAMES, having opened the case, going over the
particulars he intended to prove, the substance of which
we have already given, proceeded to call his witnesses.
Mr. Gorbett, the solicitor of the company, was the first
witness called, and deposed that Mr. Kemp had attended
several meetings of provisional directors. On one occa-
sion, when Mr. Barker received orders to insert the
advertisements in the several newspapers Mr. Kemp
was present, but witness could not say that he heard the
latter give orders for the same. It was, however, given
by some one at the time.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that the
managing committee passed a resolution, by which it
was agreed that the solicitors who projected the line,
Messrs. Gorbett, Brown, Stanley, and Miller, should
bear all the expenses up till a period of ten days poste-
rior to the last day named in the letters of allotment for
paying the deposits on shares, and that then the said
solicitors should sign all interest in the company, in
consideration of receiving 3,500 shares free of the first
deposit, in such a manner as the allotment committee
might determine. If on the tenth day named the ma-
naging committee decided to go on, 2,5001. was to be
paid down to the solicitors, such sum to be deducted
from the deposits, but if the company was broken-up,
up, then the managing committee should pay them back
all the expenses thy had been at. The managing com-
mittee subsequently refused to allot the shares, and the
company did not go on.
James Stevens, the secretary of the company, gave
evidence that he had, from time to time, by the instruc-
tions of the committee, ordered Mr. Barker toget the
advertisements inserted in the newspapers. The orders
emanated generally from the committee, but he could
not say that any one gave orders. Ilis authority was
the resolutions passed by the committee, and inserted in
the minute-book.
In cross-examination, he stated he believed the in-
structions of the committee were generally given by the
Rev. Mr. Lister, the chairman of both the provisional
and managing committees, but they were given in the
name of the board.
George Street, clerk to Mr. Barker, proved that writ-
ten and verbal orders had been received from Mr. Ste-
paperto insert the various advertisements in the news-
s, and that he had seen the greater part of the
oney paid.
At this stage of the proceedings the Court was about
to adjourn the case till to-morrow, in order that witness
might prepare a detailed account, when
Mr. ICszowLus said that, as it appeared, from some ob-
servations that had fallen from his Lordship, that he
thought there was a case to go to the jury, and
object of the plaintiff was only to recover from the de-
fendant a moiety of the account due by the provisional
directors generally, he would therefore consent to a
verdict to that amount.
A verdict was then, by order, given for the plaintiff,
fdoerfe6nsdl.a,
ate i being tchoenipurnoept
jeornt i ov
tohf t
oh
teb
e4ro3lp.
roowv g
snio
abayl the
defendant, in conjunctiofl with other provisional di-
rectors, against whom actions were pending.
MAXY V. THOMAS
This was an action brought against a coffee-house
keeper in B
exchange.i s h o ps g altte -
appearedstreet ,
to
tatilrecover Ipoloa/i.
toinff
btwo
been the previous occupant of the house, and parted
with the business to the defendant fur 3501. Atfrtne
time he sold it be stated the house to be doing om
15/. to 201. a-week. He paid down 2501., and gave the
two bills, en which this action was brought.
The defence was, that the plaintiff had misinformed
the defendant as to the amount of business done, the
receipts not being more than 101. a week, and that 2501.
was full value for the same.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
RYLAND V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
one of
This was an action brought by Mr. Ryland,
the City Pleaders, against, the above company, for da-
mages for injuries received by an accident on the rail-
way. The case was the first on the list, but the solicitor
for the company applied for a postponement of the case
till twelve o'clock. .

SO•••• ••
The SECONDARY said the difficulty was, that a special
jury had been summoned, and it would be a great incon-
venience to them. The application was ultimately
agreed to. At one o'clock the ',record, however, was
subsequently withdrawn. The damages were laid at
1,000/., and it is understood the affair was compromised
for 100/.

HOOPER V. F DY.

This was an action on an I 0 U for 101., and the de-'
fenclant pleaded pa 3 ment. It appeared from the evidence
that the plaintiff had been in partnership with his bro-
ther, but the money had been lent by the plaintiff out
of kis private property. The defendant produced a re-
ceipt signed by the firm for the amount, and it was al-
leged that was for the I 0 U. For the plaintiff, in
reply, it was urged that the receipt was for
goods solds sold by the partnership, with whom de-
fendant had had many dealings; and it was fur-
ther contended, that a receipt given in the name
of the firm could not be an answer to a private debt.
The SECONDARY left it to the jury to say whether
they believed it was a partnership receipt for a partner-
ship debt.
The jury found a verdict for 101.
The plaintiff claimed ititerest for three years, but
The Learned SECONDARY held that it was not recover-
able, as there was no promise on the face of the docu-
ment, or notice given that the defendant would be liable.

IVIARLBRO'-STREET—(THIS DAY.)
Mary Hunter was placed at the bar, under the charge
e
of being drunk and incapable of taking care of herself.
Inspector Baker informed Mr. Hardwicic that the de-.
fendant, with her husband, had been before Mr. Long
yesterday at the office, charged with stealing furniture
from their lodgings. The woman then appeared to Mr.
Long to be the cause of their misery, and they were
both discharged, on the undertaking of the husband to
return some of the articles last night, and the rest within
a short time. The next charge on the sheet was against
the husband, for stealing a feather bed from his lodgings
last night. Such was the way they had taken to settle
yesterday's charge. He believed the' evidence as to the
bed would go against the woman rather than the man.
Mr. HARDWICK ordered both prisoners to be placed
at the bar.

William Hunter was then put to the bar, charged with
stealing a feather bed from his lOdgings, Carnaby-street.
Sarah Walker, 19, Carnaby-street, said both the pri-
soners had occupied furnished apartments at her house
for the last six weeks, during which time they had
stripped too reems of everything Imt., the tables mud