The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-27 00:00:00

ITALY.

The Gazette of Milan, of the 18th, says that it is
reported that DURAND°, having heard that the capi-
tulation of Vicenza was not executed by the Aus-
trians, had halted at the sound of the cannonade.
Learning that the Duke of SA.VOT, at the head of
14,000 men, had crossed the bridge at Ronco,
General DUXANDO had retraced his steps, and, in
concert with the DUKE and General PEPE, who
brought from 4,000 to 5,000 men, he had beaten the
Austrians, who in this affair had 8,000 men put to
hors de combat. One of the Archdukes was reported
to have been killed.
The Risorgimcnto says, that private individuals at
Venice have opened lists for receiving the signatures
of such citizens as desire to demand formally from
the French Government the assistance of a French
toe nly to the
Venetian army towards gaining the independence of Italy.
Neontiectm.
n Government,eofthisstep hadbubteelnikevvi
given,,se to h
not
Govern-
ment of Lombardy.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 26.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. BAKER.
This was an action brought by the Duke of Brunswick
against Mr. Baker, an officer in the service of Mr. Slo-
man,; the sheriffs' officer, to recover compensation in
damages for certain slanderous expressions used towards
him by the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant, after great difficulty,
obtained access to the dwelling of the Duke, Bruns-
wick House, New-road, for the purpose of levying
an execution. A fracas ensued between him and the
domestics, in the course of which he said the Duke and
the whole of them were a nest of

After hearing the evidence the jury gave the plaintiff
a verdict of 40s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 26.
(Sittings in Banco.)
These sitting were resumed to-day, after an interval
of two days devoted to cases in error from the Queen's
Bench.
The Court was occupied all e.ay with two cases from
the Northern Circuit, which did not involve any points
of general interest.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the
LORD CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.)
M`GREGOR V. KEILEY.

This was an action by the plaintiff, an attorney, to re-
cover the sum of 3251. 17s. 4d. from the defendant, in
his character of a member of the managing committee
of the Great Western and Midland Junction Railway
Company.
The defendant denied his liability, that he paid the
plaintiff all his claim upon him, and that there had been
legal delivery of the plaintiff's bill of costs.
Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Willes, conducted
the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. W. H. Watson and
Mr. Crompton appeared for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN said, that the plaintiff in this case was
an attorney in Suffolk-street, and the defendant was a
gentleman of considerable property, residing in Cleve-
land-row, St. James's ; and the present action was one
of some novelty, even in the history of railways, as the
jury would discover as he proceeded with his outline of
the facts. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of
325/. 17s. 4d., the amount of his bill of costs, for having,
at the instance of the managing committee—although
he was not the solicitor to the company—sued several
members of the provisional committee of the same com-
pany for the recovery of the claims of some of the
creditors of the concern. The jury would find that after
the panic which had smitten all railway affairs in the
mouth of October, in the celebrated railway-projection
year, 1845, this, like a host of other schemes, became
the subject of annihilation, but that, like many others,
the matter was carried on until the plans and so forth
had been deposited, and then it was discovered that there
had been a debt incurred of about 13,0001. or 15,0001.
The public did not pay the deposits, but the creditors of the
company demanded the liquidation of their claims. Meet-
ings were thereupon held by the managing committee,
and a resolution was passed to the effect that each mem-
ber of the managing committee should contribute the
sum of 1001., and each member of the provisional com-
mittee should pay 501. for the purpose of raising a fund
wherewith to pay the creditors of the concern. The
defendant (as was understood) amongst several others
faithfully carried out the resolution by duly obeying its
command; but there were many others who failed in
complying with the request. and, with a view to enforc-
ing payment from them, it was determined by the ma-
naging committee that attorneys who were not connected
with the company should be employed to bring actions
against those individuals for the different persons to
whom the company was indebted. The plaintiff was
one of the gentlemen who had been so employed; and it
was for the balance of his claim against the company,
upon his bill of costs, that the present action had been
brought. He should call the gentleman who had acted
as secretary to the company, as well as one of the gen-
tlemen who was one of the solicitors to it; both of whom
would state that not only had the defendant been a
member of the managing committee, but one of the
most active.

Nicholas John Kemp said, that in the year 1845 he
had acted as the secretary to this railway company. In
October in that year there was a meeting of the pro-
motors of that company. The defendant was one of those
gentlemen. There was a committee of management ap-
pointed in November, and the defendant was one who
was present and was appointed on that committee.
That body held meetings from time to time in 1845 and
1846 at Palace-chambers, 88, S. James'-street, where
the company had their offices. The defendant attended
those meetings. The company employed persons to
advertise it. Witness employed Wreford and Lloyd to
do that. Had heard the claim of Mr. Sheridan, a
surveyor, discussed at meetings of the com-
mittee of management. There was a meeting
of the committee at Birmingham, at which the
defendant was present. There were several meet-
ings of the committee in London in the month of De-
cember, 1845. One on the 18th of that month was
held, but the defendant was not present. The defendant
was present at a meeting held on the 14th of January,
1846, and also at one on the 3d of that month. The
call of 501. from each provisional committeeman was
made on the 18th of December, but the defendant was
not present then. The subject, however, was spoken of
on the 11. th of January, and the defendant acted as
chairmant on the occasion. A resolution was then passed
Ohnatththee
2s3ederoeftary should write to all of those of the
visional core
provisional committee who had not paid the 501. call into
leers, requiring that they should do so at once.
October there was a meeting of the pro-
It was also resolved committee, at which a committee of manage-
ment was appointed,t
and engineer shovuelid of which the defendant was one.
at that meeting that the solicitors
the members of the enter into a deed of indemnity to
provisional committee for all costs,
expenses and charges
resolved that four of On the 28th of October it
was
the committee of management
should form a quorum for
afterwards of business.
There were meetings
at which the claims
efendea of these was on
upon the company were discussedd
the 14th of January, when tho
arranged
present.
of their claims.
At some of the meetings it was that some of
the creditors should lend their names to the company
for the purpose of actions being brought against the
members of the provisional committee who had not paid
Thistheir contributions,was witwith
th the
v efwo r
otfh
compelling
m recoverypellng
those provisional
committeemen to pay their contribution of 50/. each.
The defendant on several occasions brought letters
of application to him for the payment of claims
upon the company, and said that it was most un-
fair that he should be called upon individually so
long as there were other members of the committee
who had not paid their contributions. One of
these letters was an application on behalf of Wreford
and Lloyd, dated 20th January, 1847," demanding the
payment of 1,144/. 9s. 2d. The plaintiff was one of
the attorneys who had been employed to sue committee-
men 'for creditors at the instance of the managing
committe were made acquainted with their progress.
Of these actions some had been brought by the plaintiff.
The defendant was present on those occasions. There
was a meeting in April (I Ith,) at which the defendant
was also present, when a letter was read from one of the
provisional committee on the subject of the threat of
proceedings to enforce the payment of the 501. contribu-
tion. On the Bth of August, 1846, the defendant was at
a meeting at which the minutes of the four previous
meetings were confirmed, and at that meeting a resolution
was passed to the effect that an acceptance for 50/.
on----, should be paid to the present plaintiff ()u
account of his bill of costs. That acceptance was duly
honoured. A check for 501 was at this meeting also
given to the plaintiff on account of his costs.
Cross-examined.—l was appointed on the 23d of Oc-
tober, and the solicitors were appointed at the same
time. The plaintiff is an attorney in London. The
managing committee was appointed out of the provi-
sional committee. There was an allotment, but not any
more than 200 L was received at the rate of ss. per share;
although, altogether, between 5,000/. and 6,0001. were
received. The capital was to be 1,250,000/. The plans,
&c., were deposited, but after that nothing was done,
except the meetings to wind up the concern. But in