The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

HOWDEN V. HOLMES.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Bramwell were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channel! and Mr. Peacock
for the defendant.

Mr. CIIAMBERS said this was another railway case
but he believed the jury would see that the present claim
was made under very different circumstances to the one
that had just been disposed of. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to state the circumstances under which
the action was brought. The plaintiff he described as
being a writer to the Signet, in Scotland, who also
carried on the profession of a parliamentary agent in
London : and he sought to recover from the defendant,
as one of the provisional committee of a projected rail-
way, called the Hull, Birmingham, and Swansea Junc•
tion Railway company, the sum of 1364 for services as
Ita parliamentaryappeared
the companyagentin
connexion with that Company.
was projected in the latter
that
defendant, who was a boiler maker, p
end of 184.5, by a solicitor namedaEndldearsheraswo,nanodf the
defendant, who was a boiler maker, and a person of in-
fluence in the town of Hull, gave his written consent to
act as one of the provisional committee, and he was
represented as such in the form prescribed by the Act
of Parliament. The panic of last year had the effect
upon this scheme which it had upon so many others, and
the London committee resolved to wind up the affairs
of the company ; and upon examining the accounts, it
was found that if every member of this committee paid
down the sum of 251., it would raise a sufficient amount
to pay off the whole claims upon the company; and the
London Committee agreed to contribute their share,
but it appaared that the defendant and the other mem-
bers of the Hull Committee refused to accede to this
arrangemet, and Mr. Chambers admitted that in cense-
cLuence of the refusal of these gentlemen to contribute
what was considered there quota towards the liabilities
of the defunct company, that the secretary and solicitor
were assisting, the plaintiff in his action to compel the
defendant to pay the whole amount fcr which he was
legally responsible in his capacity as one of the provi-
sional committee.
The various documents were put in to show the posi-
tion of the defendant in connexion with the company,
and evidence was likewise adduced to show that the
charges made by the plaintiff were fair and reasonable.
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELL addressed the jury for the
defendant, and said that this was an attempt to obtain
money from Mr. Holmes, and a number of other gen •
Vemen residing at Hull, without—as he had no doubt he
should be able to satisfy the jury—the slightest ground
for the claim that was made upon them. The specula-
tion in question, as they had heard, was projected by
Mr. Elderton, the attorney, who, thinking it would be
advantageous to the scheme that it should have the sup-
port of persons of influence in the town of Hull, took
procaediegs to obtain these signatures to the prospectus
that was issued to the public. He in the first place ep.

DIRECTORS.

THE SUN, LONDON,

plied to Mr. Jones, the Mayor of Hull, and asked for his
support to the scheme, and in that communication he
expressly stated that if the Mayor would allow his name
to be placed upon the list of the committee, and would
use his influence to induce other responsible persons in
the town to do the same, that the whole of the parties
should be guaranteed from all liability with regard to the
expenses that might be incurred.
Mr. CITAIIDERS interposed, and submitted to the Court
that such proof as this would not affect the claim of the
present plaintiff.
Mr. Baron PARSE expressed an opinion that the evi-
dence suggested by Mr. Sergeant Channels would be
perfectly relevant. The question the jury would have
to consider was, whether the defendant intended to
make himself responsible, or whether he had merely
consented that his name should be placed upon the list
of the Committee under the guarantee that he should
not be called upon for any share of the expenses.
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELL then proceeded to state that
it was entirely owing to the representations of Mr.
Elderton, and the guarantee given him, that Mr. Jones,
and the defendant, and the other gentlemen living at
Hull, consented to allow their names to be placed upon
the provisional committee, and they never took any
share in the subsequent proceedings. Eventually, how-
ever, a demand was made upon each of them for the
sum of 251., which would have amounted altogether to
between two and three thousand pounds; and when they
inquired how this sum was to be disposed of, and wished
to see the accounts, they were not allowed to see them, but
were told that after the money was paid they would be in.
formed how the accounts stood. They, of course,
objected to pay any money under such circumstances,
and when the jury had seen the documents he should
lay before them, he had very little doubt that they would
be of opinion that the defendant was entitled to a
verdict.

The Learned Counsel then put in the letters he re-
ferred to, bearing out the statement as to the nature of
the original connexions between the parties, and like-
wise the guarantee with regard to the expenses that
was given by Mr. Elderton. It did not appear, however,
that the present defendant was aware originally of the
existence of a guarantee and it seemed that he signed the
prospectus and crave his written consent to act as one of
the committee before he was aware of its existence. It
was part of the defendant's case also, that the plaintiff
was not a regular parliamentary agent, although he
had taken upon himself to act in that capacity; and that,
therefore, he was not entitled to claim for a number of
the items that appeared in his account.
Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, and placed all
the material facts clearly before the jury, they returned
a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 501.

EfARTNOLL V. CURLING.
This action was disposed of late on Wednesday night.
The plaintiff is the proprietor of a newspaper, pub-
lished at Greenock, and he sought to recover from the
defendant, who was the solicitor to and projector of
several lines of railway in Kent, the sum of 691. for ad-
vertising parliamentary notices connected with those
schemes.

Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Lush were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Chambers for
the defendant.

The fact of the insertion of the advertisements was
proved, but on behalf of the defendant it was argued that
as solicitor to a company he was not liable. In the case
of one of the " Companies" there did not appear to be
any other person mentioned but the defendant, as so-
licitor ; but in the others provisional committees were
appointed, and their names appeared in the prospectuses.
Mr. Baron PARKE, in summing up, said that in the
cases where no provisional committee had been ap-
pointed, and the defendant had taken upon himself to
order the insertion of the advertisements,be was clearly
liable ; but in the other case, it was for the jury to say,
upon the facts, whether they considered the defendant
had made himself personally responsible, or whether he
was merely acting as the agent of the c,mmittee.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 331., striking
out all that portion of the account incurred by the defen-
dant as so!icitor where a provisional committee had
been appointed.

CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Thomas Constant, 14, George Gower, 12, Edward
Cansdell, 11, and Felix Finn, 11, were indicted for un-
lawfully placing rivers pieces of wood and iron upon the
rails of the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway, and
thereby endangering the safety of the passengers travel-
ling upon the said railway.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Baldwin prosecuted, and Mr.
Mellor appeared for the defendants.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel, and the
evidence that was adduced, it appeared that, on the
evening of the 13th July, a train started from Canter-
bury to Whitstable at seven o'clock in the evening, and
when it had proceeded a short distance, the guard dis •
covered that an iron chair had been placed upon one of the
rails, the engine passing over it before it could be stopped,
but fortunately no injury was effected. The guard then
proceeded along the rail, and discovered en iron bar
stuck in the ground between the rails, and a number of
other chairs were also found at intervals placed upon
the rails for a distance of nearly a mile; and, but for the
timely discovery of the obstructions by the guard, very
serious consequences might have resulted. Evidence
was now given to show that all the defendants were seen
upon the railway about the time in question, and two of
them were proved to have placed the chairs andhe
other articles upon the rails.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Constant
and Finn, and acquitted the others.
Julgrnent was respired.
Allpress, aged 30, was indicted for the man-
slaughter of Anne Allpress, his wife.
Mr. Horne prosecuted, and Mr. Mellor defended the
prisoner.

It appeared that the parties resided at Gillingham, and
the defendant was very much addicted to drink. On
the night of the occurrence in question, she was at a
public-house intoxicated, and the prisoner had an alter-
cation with her; and, according to the testimony of one
of the witnesses, he struck her a violent blow on the eye
and also kicked her. His statement was, however, con-
tradicted by other witnesses, and it appeared that the
deceased had fallen down some stairs, and the actual
cause of death was by no means clearly made out.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 21.
CIVIL SIDE.
CRIM. CON.-WOOD V. NICHOLSON.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case for the plaintiff, who
was a man of a respectable condition in society, an at-
torney by profession, but carrying on also a small farm-
ing business, at or near Leeds. The defendant was his
intimate acquaintance for years, and was a brewer in
large business in Hunelet-street, in that town. The
cause of action, there was good reason to believe, had
subsisted for three or four years before the knowledge or
the guilt of the parties came to the husband's ears, and
it was to be regretted that the plaintiff had been mar-
ried to his wife 18 years, and had had a large family by
her, of whom five children were now alive. It was for
haring deprived him of the society and comfort of a wife
under such circumstances that the plaintiff endeavoured
to obtain at the hands of a jury compensation for his
loss through the hypocrisy and treachery of his sup-
posed friend.
•

Several witnesses were called to establish the plain-
tiff's case, the chief of whom was a man named Robin-
son, a person of equivocal character. He stated that
Mrs. Wood was continually running after Nicholson,
and he swore to direct acts of criminality. The greater
pirt of the evidence is unfit for publication.
Mr. BAINES made an able speech for the defendant.
Ire observed that nothing could be more clear than that
this case had beef' got up by the plaintiff to get rid of
his wife, by whom he had had a large property, and who
had borne him a large family, and was a careful, indus-
trious woman, as well as a good wife and mother. The
attempt was the more to be reprobated because the par-
ties had lived for several years in affection and harmony.
The Learned Counsel called several of Mr. Wood's
servants, a governess, two medical gentlemen, and a col-
lector of taxes. The servants and governess gave Mrs.
Wood an excellent character, and deposed to various
acts of ill-treatment on the part of her husband, and
im-
pr. per attempts to procure evidence against her; and
one of the medical gentlemen stated, that Mr. Wood
had endeavoured to obtaia a certificate of his wife's in-
sanity.
Thy result was a verdict for the defendant.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, July 21.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a
common jury.)

SNAITH V. NEWCOMBE. - LIABILITY OF RAILWAY

This was an action on promises. The plaintiff is an
attorney practising in this county ; the defendant is a
solicitor and proprietor of the Stamford Mercury, a paper
of very extensive circulation, and the action was brought
by Mr. Snaith to recover from Mr. Newcombe, in his
capacity of a director of the Peterborough and Notting-
haul Junction Railway, the sum of 731. 10s. for deposits
onnus
itnahttaotof
uf certainn2d7e,roto e shares
sn
shares.
re
sThis w. hich the plaintiff had
ppau irdchoatnos c iad:oTsheothmee was
provisional
adver-
tised
committeemen 6,000 shares were allotted ; to the ma-
naging directors none in the first instance, although
subsequently some of them did take their 100 shares,
and Mr. Newcombe himself paid 200 guineas out of his
pocket, as did several others of the managing directors,
towards the expenses of the undertaking. There were
applications for 400,000 shares. The plaintiff had ap-
plied fur 50, and as a favour was allotted 35. It was
proved the plans and sections had been prepared, but
theirowing
depositst o t h e
(evenpanic, andthe thethr
three
subscribers
shillings
perrefusing
sharto e pay
their deposits (even the three shillings per share re-
quested of them by letter), the scheme did not go on.
As to Mr. Newcombe being a director, the principal evi-
dence was his name appearing in advertisements con-
tdnati
inre,ea
tiend hi
hiss oam
opinion
of Tt
hhee
iLn
sena
ffir neeide
nJoyu degfe
esyoi
ds ternoenegtlyo
fix the defendant with liability, that the plaintiff elected
to be non•suited.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
ABDUCTION OF A HUSBAND.—A female oF the name
of IVestmoi land, and four respectable-looking farming
men, were indicted for conspiring to seize the person of
one J. Toiler Westmorla:(.l. The prosecutor, as appeared
from the evidence, is a person posessed of some propene,
but had fur some time past been separated from his
wife, to whom he allowed 1001. a year. The wife, not
satisfied with this arrangement, with the other defen-
dants, seized the prosecutor at his place of residence at
Bourn, in this county, put him into a chaise, and carried
him away to a lone house near the sea, the property of
one of the defendants. He was, however, soon found
out and brought back. It was alleged that Mr. West-
morland was not in the fullest possession of his faculties,
and that the proceeding was not dictated by any fru_
proper motive.
The defendants recalled their plea of not guilty, and
pleaded emilty to the common assault.
five Theye.p:ris prisoners
se werer.
Westmorland bound ov over tot
their elrotwh parerecoeg fur
..
aances for 5001. each, one of the defendants binding him
self in a further sum of 5001. for Mrs. Westmorland.

IDAY MORNING, JULY 24, 1846.