The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-13 00:00:00

RAILWAY DEPOSITS.

The following deposits were ordered to be paid out
of Court, to the under-mentioned railway companies:
32,5001, to the Exeter and Great Western Branch, re-
jected ; 18,974 L to the Br;sto1 and South Wales Junc-
tion, passed ; and 10,4491. to the Dover and Deal Rail-
way, passed.

(Before Sir K. BRUCE.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PEARSON.

His Honour aelivered: judgment:in this case, which
had been previously argued. It was an information
filed at the relation of two persons named Jos. J. Rae
and Richard 'Main, against certa'n persons forming
part of a public body of officers acting as trustees under
the Acts of Parliament for regulating the affairs of the
parish of St. Mary, Islington, complaining that a sum
of 4001. had been wrongfully applied by the defendants
as trustees under the Act, and praying that they might
be decreed to repay the same. It appeared that about
three years ago, a person named Eliot, resident at
Llington, being considered by the trustees as a dan-
gerous lunatic, had been forcibly carried to the work-
huuse by order of the defendant, and there confined
in a strait waistcoat. He was afterwards discharged,
and thereupon brought actions against the parties who
had been concerned in his removal. Actions were
brought against Allen, Tyas, and Western, in respect
of the personal aggression, ann against flicks, the re-
lieving officer; Ellis, the master of the workhouse; Simple,
the parish surgeon ; and Beavan, another officer of the
parish. Another action was also broueht against Older-
shaw, the clerk of the trustees, and another person acting
under him, in respect of the removal of his goods. In
the former of these actions Eliot recovered 4001. damages,
and in both actions he recovered costs. The damages
and costs had been paid by the defendants out of the
poor-rates, and the question was whether this was a legal
payment. His honour, after going through the facts of
the case at great length, said, for the purpose of deciding
this question, he must look at the particular evidence
now adduced with respect to Eliot. First came the in-
terval between the 26th of November, 1842, and his
being brought to the workhouse ; secondly, his stay
in the workhouse ; and thirdly, his tran-it to the Court
of the police magistrate, and the proceedings which took
place there. As to Eliot's apparent state of mind, his
Honour had carefully considered the evidence, and he
was satisfied, from his language and conduct before and
on the 28th of November, 1842, and on former occasions,
and in the interval between that day and the time of his
liberation at the police court, that he was in a state of insa-
nity, likely, if unwatched and unrestrained, to do some
mischief, and quite unfit, both on his own account, and for
the sake of others, to be left to himself. Another point
was as to his means at the time. On that subject he
was convinced, from the situation be was in, and the
'circumstances which happened at the time of his recep-
tion into the workhouse, he was in such a state of po-
verty and destitution as would render him liable to re-
ceive parish relief, and that the order for his admission
into the house was both reasonable and unavoidable,
and he believed it was issued without any unlawful or
improper intention. On the contrary, he thought the
granting of it was praiseworthy and commendable. He
should now consider particularly the first period of time
he had mentioned. In that respect he was satisfied that
neither the trustees nor Mr. Oldershaw, Mr. Sim, or
Mr. Hicks directed or authorised the placing of Eliot
under restraint, for the purpose of removing him to the
workhouse ; nor did he think he was bound judicially to
believe that Ellis had any participation in that act. If
this view were correct, might it nut be said that if Eliot
had not been admitted, the trustees or the other per-
sons he bad mentioned, might have been properly sued
by Eliot for not admitting him ? He should say, yes ;
and be thought it was quite proper to have received him
into the house. Then as to his stay in the workhouse.
He did not think that he had been treated with either
inhumanity or neglect. Whether the continuance of the
restraint was strictly justifiable in point of law was a
question he had not fully determined upon, but he
thought all the proceedings were taken from he most
proper motives. From all the circumstances of this
case he much doubted whether the action of Eliot and
Allen ought ever to have been brought, and he consi-
(bred the damages given by the jury were prodigious.
His Honour thought the resolution of the board of trus-
tees, by which they authorised a defence to the action,
was reasonable and just. Another resolution of the
board authorises the payment of the costs and damages
out of the parish rates. The object of this in-
formation being to compel the defendants to re-
fund the sums which had been paid out of the parish
rates, the question was, whether the Court ought to en-
force that claim. Before the information was filed two
vestry meetings were held, but at neither of these were
the rates repeated out of which the costs and expenses
had been paid. His Honour thought, under the general
law applicable to rates and overseers' accounts, it was
quite right to provide for these expences. It was evident
that Oldershaw acted as the officer of the trustees ; they
had many public duties to perform, out of which ques-
tions might frequently arise ; numbers of persons were
placed under their care, and it had happened that one was
afffictei with insanity—a complairl from which neither
the rich nor poor were exempt. The authority to be
Used in such cases was very hazardous ; but how were
the trustees to act ? If steps were not immediately
taken some fatal extravagance might be com-
mitted. The duty to be performed on such
occasions ought not to be considered slight. It was
contended that relief must be granted against the de-
fenditate upon the authority of the case of Attorney-
General ft. Compton, decided ,by himself. He thought
however, that that case did not in any manner rule
or govern this. The facts of the two cases were mate-
rially different. He thought this information ought to
be dismissed. He should dismiss it because he con-
sidered the acts complained of were acts of trustees of
the parish of Islington, and done without any wrong in-
tention, either on the part of themselves or their agents.
For his own part he firmly believed that they had all
acted justly in the execution of their duty, and with
judgment, diligence, and honesty. As to costs, he should
dismiss the information with them, unless there was an
intention to appeal ; if there was (and he should neither
countenance nor discountenance an appeal), then he
thought it would be right to dismiss it without costs, un-
til suel2 appeal were decided ; whatever might be the
fate of the information on appeal, he trusted that means
would be found in this opulent parish to cover the ex-
penses of the suit. It was subsequently elected that the
appeal should be dismissed without costs.

COURT OF: EXCHEQUER, July 10.
(Sittie.gg at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the CHIEF
BAaoN,..and a Special Jury.)

WYLD r. SLOANE.

This waa an action by Mr. Wyld, the map-seller of
Charing-cross, against the defendant, in his capacity as a
provisional director of the Peterborough and Nottingham
Railway Company.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Willis were for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Iloqins and Mr. Fitzherbert for the defendant.
he case on behalf of the plaintiff was substantially similar
to that tried a few days since in this court, in which the pre-
sent plaintiff recovered a verdict against a Mr. 1)(?uglam
Ilopkina for 7611. 3s. 9d., the precise sum claimed in the
present action, and which sum was the balance of a debt of
1,950/. for work done by the plaintiff in engraving plans,
sections, And maps, for the proposed company,
It now appeared, upon the examination of Mr. Gridley,
the solicitor for the company, that the defendant had under-
taken, in his character of a provisional committeeman, to
take 100 shares, but that he had not paid any deposit
on the shares, and that this action was brought by
Mr. Wyld, at the instance of the managing committee, to
compel the defendant to pay his proportion of the expanses
of the company. 'The witness stated, on cross-examination,
that the gross expenses of the company amounted to about
11,009/., that the plaintiff had received about 1,0004 out of
bits bill, and that witness. for his professional services, was
entitled to a sum of about 1,5001. There was at pre-
sent a sum of between 6,0001. and x,OOOl. at the com-
pany's bankers,
in the name of the inaging directors.
The amount required to be deposited by the standing orders
of Parliament was not paid in by the allotteeo which was
the only reason why the project had not beenproceeded
From 20 to 30 actions had been brought by Mr. Wyld agait at
provisional directors who had not paid their share of the ex-
p. Eight or ten of those actions bad been settled with-
out` trial on the defendants paying 2101. each, or the deposit
on liV
The sum so paid did pot go into the pocket