The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

THE PRYINGS OF A POSTMAN.

The Postman of Stolcgate, with unblushing effrontery,
does not scruple to inform us that every letter which
passed through his hands, was, in opposition to all rules
of honour and propriety, by him duly examined and pe-
rused. He has even gone so far as to transcribe the
most interesting, which furnish a volume of considerable
amusement. The affairs of individuals of all characters,
good, bad, or indifferent; their various thoughts and
feelings, hopes and fears, are freely unfolded to us, in the
most easy and natural manner possible, by the perusal
of their private correspondence. Many of the letters
follow en suite, and furnish a little history of themselves;
and however much we disapprove the conduct of the
postman, we must confess that.his peccadilloes afford con-
siderable amusement.

A BOOK OF HIGHLAND MINSTRELSY. By
Mrs. D. Ogilvy. With Illustrations by R. R. M'lan.
A book of Highland minstrelsy! Is not the name
enough? Does it not bring before us the wild and
simple ballads, the mournful melodies of the mountain
land? The fanciful and heart-stirring legends of the
north are peculiarly the poet's theme; and the High-
landers, with their fierce passions, clinging superstition,
romantic chivalry, generosity, and devotion, are the
Heaven-made heroes of minstrelsy. Such are the ma-
terials from which Mrs. Ogilvy has formed her book.
Many an old custom or wild tradition is here converted
by her pen into a poem. The metre is very various,
but
but well assorted to the subjects. One of the_ most
beautiful pieces is the first, " The Exile at Culloden."
The long lines of many syllables ha
theme;
adeg
mournful majesty very appropriate to the r
and ofthe picture of the heart-broken exile, hiding his brow in
his the his bonnet, is among the most interesting
adorned. The
illustra-
tions with which the work is bountifully
binding and " getting up" of the volume are unexcep-
tionable, and the crimson co
leaningye
r
,
bordered with thistles,
over his " Harp of
displays an ancient minstrel
on
ivacl
ofection.
049 North" with a haizture of 4,411

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 10.

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. SHARP.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
At the close of the argument, the COURT, after reviewing
the whole case, agreed that it did not come within their
urisdiction, the vicar being an ecclesiastical officer, and in
virtue of his office sole scrutator and presiding officer in all
matters relating to the Church. He was, therefore, in that
capacity not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.—
Rule discharged accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 10.
The Court was engaged all day till half-past five o'clock
on motions, none of which presented any matter for a report.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron
PARKE and Common Juries.)
RAILWAY COMMITTEEMEN.—LAW V. WILSON.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered and sup-
plied to the defendant as a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the Southampton, Petersfield, and London Direct
Railway Company. The sum sought to be recovered was
581. 17s. 6d.

Mr: Jervis and Mr. Cole conducted the case for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. noggins (with whom was Mr. Rawlinson) ap-
peared for the defendant.

- It appeared that in the month of September in the past
year a scheme was got up by Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, to
construct a railway from Southampton to Petersfield, and
then on " direct" to London. On the 30th of that month
Mr. Duncan and the other solicitors wrote the following
letter to the defendant:—

" " 72, Lombard-street, Sept. 30, 1845.
Sir,—At the request of Mr. Bradley, we forward you a
prospectus of the Southampton, Petersfield, and London
Direct Railway, and shall feel obliged by your informing us
the
eptrhoevr
Lsiy oo un
adl ecsoi emt
tht
eaeve
of ytohuer
con ammpeainnr elvd
ei na
rteh, e f
In reply to this letter the writers obtained no written an-
swer; but a few days after it had been sent, although the
party to whom it had been addressed had removed from his
former habitation, the defendant called at the office and
stated that he should have no objection to be a director of
the company. The clerk thereupon endorsed on the
letter, " Agreeable to be a director." The company went on,
and presently an allotment of 50 shares was awarded to the
defendant as one of the provisional committee. The defend-
ant, however, not only never took up the shares, but
never took any notice either of the numerous letters and
official reports and papers which were constantly being for-
warded to him from the company's office. By-and-by the
railway market became under the influence of the panic, and
then the managing committee—for there was a managing
committee, consisting of some 16 or 18 parsons—thought it
useless to proceed with the undertaking, and at once
turned their minds to the consideration of the ques-
tion as to which would be the best way of winding
up the concern, and liquidating the debts which had been
incurred. The result of this deliberation was a resolution
to return 255. per share out of the 21. 2s. deposit to the
shareholders, which was subsequently done, and that each
provisional committeeman should be called upon to contribute
the sum of 354 as his fair proportion of the expenses incurred.
Accordingly a letter, containing the resolution, and solicit-
ing the payment of the 351., was sent to the defendant, but
of that communication he took not the slightest notice. In
the end, however, the present action was brought by the
plaintiff, one of the creditors of the concern against him in
his character of a member of the provisional committee of
the company.
On behalf of the plaintiff's case there was, under these cir-
cumstances, a failure in proving that the defendant had
given his written consent to become a member of the pro-
visional committee, and that he had, upon any occasion,
acted in the conduct or management of the affairs of the
company. Thus far the case had proceeded, when the
Learned Baron was compelled to rise on Tuesday.
Mr. HOGGINS now addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendant, and at the outset denied the statement made by his
Learned Friend, that his client had, like the other members of
the provisional committee, been in the habit of receiving
his two guineas per day for his attendance at the office,
and for the best of all reasons, that, except upon the day
when he had given his consent to become a director, he
had never been near the concern. Neither had he, like those
who had taken part in the proceedings of the company, be-
nefited by the premiums which had been gained upon the
shares. He should throw himself back upon the question
which had been left to the jury in the case of "Barnett v.
Lambert "—namely, 1‘ did the defendant render himself
liable for the goods supplied in consequence of his having
given an express consent or an implied consent by personal
communication or in writing" to become a provisional com-
mitteeman, and to become, in common with others, responsible
and liable for the debts of the company ? or did he give such
an authority to the secretary of the company as could bind
him to the consequences of any acts of what now appeared
to be a select managing committee? But he contended that
in the present case the question was not as between the
creditor of the company and the defendant, but between the
managing committee, who, in strictness, were liable to every
claim, and the defendant. The use of the plaintiff's name
was a matter of form—a mere blind, for the real plaintiffs
were the managing committee. The main question in the
case was as to what was the meaning of the consent which
the defendant was stated to have given? Was it not that
he consented to become a director, and in which character
it was quite clear he meant to become one of that body
which was to take the control and management of the affairs
of the company, and not ene of a provisional committee,
whom, without having any control over either the arrange-
ments, or the incurring or not embarking in large liabilities,
it was now attempted to render liable? That was the simple
question, he apprehended. Well, then, it was quite clear
that he had not given any consent to become a member of
the provisional committee, and, therefore, that being so, it
was beyond all doubt that he was in no way liable for the
debts which the managing committee had thought proper to
incur. He submitted, therefore, that the defendant could not
be held liable,

Mr. Baron PARKE, in leaving the case to the jury, said, it
was in the first instance necessary for the plaintiff to make
out that there had been an express contract entered into by
the defendant in person, or by his agent, and that it was
only upon such ground that he could recover. The question
was, whether the person who entered into the contract
with the plaintiff was the authorised agent of the party who
was sought to be made liable? There was no doubt that
in the first instance the claim was upon Brooks, the secre-
tary, but if that party contracted the debt as the agent of
another, then the question arose as to whether the defendant
was that other. In the present instance the plaintiff, there
was no doubt, could have brought his action against Brooks,
or against the managing committee, but he had not chosen
to sue either of these, against either of whom he could have
had no difficulty in proving his claim, but rather chose to
select a member of the provisional committee. The acting
committee had abandoned the concern, and had then made a
claim upon the provisional committee. But the managing
committee had clearly made themselves liable for these
debts, for they it was who had conducted the concern, and
had authorised the contraction of debts. But, so far as the
jury as concerned in the present case, the question was,
whether it had been made out to their satisfaction that the
defendant had rendered himself liable by consenting to be-
come a director. That consent was clearly not in the terms of
the present form of action in so far as the description was con-
cerned. The defendant consented to become a director, not a
provisional committeeman, and the promoters of the company
or the managing committee had thought proper to make him
that which, as far as the evidence went, he had not con-
sented to become. The jury, before they could make him
liable to this claim, must be satisfied that he had given his
consent, or had meant to become a member of the provisional
committee; and, further, that in that capacity he had in-
tended to take upon himself all the responsibilities which
the managing committee might think proper to incur. Then
there was another matter for them to take into consideration.
The defendant, it was admitted on the part of the clerk of
the company, had not only not taken up shares, but had
never acted as a committeeman, or had taken the most re-
mote participation in the business. He did not accept the
settlement of 50 shares • he had in no way interfered in the
, concern nor had he attended any meeting, and he had re-
fused to answer or take any notice of the numerous letters
which had been sent to him from the office of the company,
It, moreover, appeared that the provisional committee had
had:no power to interfere with the managing committee. If
the jury were of opinion that the defendant had not given
his consent to become a provisional committeeman, there was
then an end to the case. There had been no evidence offered
to show what the duties of the provisional committee were,
but all had gone to establish the responsibility of the ma-
naging committee, and that those parties were responsible
for all acts and debts they incurred, either by themselves or
by their agent.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Baron PARKE then said, that it was not to be sup-
posed that, because a man allowed his name to be inserted in
the list of provisional committeemen, he made himself re-
sponsible for every act or every liability of a managing com-
mittee, unless it could be proved that he had acted in the
conduct of the concern.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

The widow of Thomas Blewitt, the unfortunate man who
died a short time since from the effects of the gun-shot wound
inflicted by John Graham, in Drury-lane, applied to the
sitting magistrate, Mr. Henry, to relieve and advise her in
her present distressing situation.
The applicant, who was attired in respectable mourning,
stated that she was dependent upon the wages of her hus-
band during his lifetime, for the support of herself and child
—a girl about seven years of age—and had now no means
of living ; she was therefore anxious to get a little money to
place herself in a small way of business.
Owing to the suggestions of Mr. Mace, the chief usher,
and a police inspector in Court, his worship was induced to
question the woman at some length as to her habits and
general character, it having appeared that she was convicted
and fined at this Court, about four months ago, for mis-
conduct. She denied that she was in the habit of drinking,
but admitted that for a considerable period she did not live
with her husband. This, however, she attributed to his
misconduct, and not her own. She stated that they went to
Hong-Kong together, about five years ago, and that her hus-
band, after getting into debt, absconded from her, and left
her in China unprotected. A subscription was there got up
for her, and she returned to England by the ship Tory,
Captain Johnson, at whose trial, in November and January
last, she appeared as a witness at the Old Bailey. At this
time she again became acquainted with her husband, who
called upon her at her lodgings, but it did not appear upon
what terms they lived together, if at all, up to the shocking
occurrence in Drury-lane.
It would be unfair to state the allegations on either side
at present, but enough transpired to show that they did not
live happily together.
Mr. HENRY, therefore, deputed the usher to make a full
inquiry into the matter, and report the result of his investi-
gation next week.

HAMMERSMITH.
After the night charges were disposed of, Mr. Hardy
Hislop, of No. 3, Lansdown-villas, Fulham-road, was placed
at the bar before Mr. G. Clive, the sitting magistrate, on a
charge of having violated the person of Caroline Mathews,
his servant.
Mr. J. Todd, solicitor, of No. 23, Thavies Inn, Holborn,
attended for the prisoner.
Caroline Mathews, a rather pretty-looking young woman,
deposed that she was now living in ,On Friday Friday last she was James-street living in the service
of the prisoner, O
ne;, at No. 3 Lansdown-villas. On that night
she retired to bed about eleven , o'clock, leaving the
prisoner, her master, down stake. She undressed, and
had been in the room about twenty minutes before she got
into bed. She had not been in bed above two minutes before
the prisoner came into the room. He was undressed with
the exception of his shirt. Mrs. Hislop, the prisoner's wife,
had left home, and gone into the country on the previous day
(Thursday). The prisoner said to witness, "As we are in
the house together, we may as well sleep together." Wit-
ness told him that he should not, and that she would tell
her mistress. Witness had, on seeing the prisoner enter the
room, jumped out of bed, and was trying to run out of the
room' but the prisoner would not let her, and said he did not
care for her mistress. Witness struggled with him, but he
took hold of her and threw her on the bed. The Witness
then stated circumstances tending to show that he suc-
ceeded in attaining his objeet.
By Air. CLrYz--Witneie tried to push hiE ewer and