The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-20 00:00:00

LAW IN
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec.l9,
_ _ _

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice DEN.
MAN and a Special Jury.)
WILSON V. HOLDEN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a stationer
aad printer, to recover the sum of 941. from the defend-
Ent for work, labour, and materials supplied to the Avon
and Severn Valley Railway, he being one of the pro-
visional committee. It appeared that the orders were
given through Mr. Brooks, the secretary, who deposed
to the attendance or the defendant at various meet-
ings of the committee, and to his taking an active inte-
rest in the undertaking.
It was shown Aur Mr. Waterlow, jun. (the firm of
Messrs. Waterlow having done some of the work), the
plaintiff's son, and the managing clerk of Mr. Bailey,
the paper-maker, that the work, though charged
at a high rate, was not exorbitant, considering
the extraordinary nature of the period-1845 ; whilst
Mr. Olding, the banker, produced a letter signed
by the defendant and other members of the committee,
requesting the firm with which he was connected to open
an account with the company.
Mr. CROWDER, who appeared for the defendants, con-
tended that no evidence had been adduced to show that
the secretary was empowered to act as the agent of the
defendants, and that unless the jury vvi re of opinion
that the secretary had so acted they could not find him
liable.

Lord DEN3IAN told the jury that the appearance of a
person's name as a provisional committeeman in a pro-
spectus did not necessarily render him liable for the whole
of the debts contracted by a company, but he could not
get rid of all liability. It was right that they should
bear in mind that the defendant did not become a com-
mitteeman until the 27th of September, and that the
bill dates from the 22d of that month.
The jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed, after a deliberation of nearly four hours.

BAILEY V. BRACEBRIDGE.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Bailey Bro-
thers, the well-known advertising agents, to recover the
sum of 7701., the balance of an account of 1,500/. odd, of
which about 8001. had been paid. The plaintiffs were
the advertising agents of the South Midland;of which the
defendant was the vice-charman. The project, which
was originally entitled the " Ashby de la Zouch
and Burton-upon-Trent," was an unfortunate one ;
but little more than 300/. was paid in the shape
of deposits. The advertisements were inserted in
the morning and evening newspapers, and it was shown
that the charges and per tentage were reasonable, consi-
dering the nature of the period and the great additional
expense involved in getting the advertisements inserted,
and of employing extra clerks, cab hire, &c., and further
that no complaint was made of the charges by any one
connected with the company.
Mr. iIIIMFREY addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that the defendant had never pledged his
in lividual credit to the plaintiffs, who had inserted the
advertisements upon speculation, expecting that they
would be paid at some time•or other by somebody. The
defendant had already paid 100 guineas as his share of
the expenses.

Lord DEN3f. A N having summed up the evidence, the
jury gave their verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, 6304

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 19.
(Sittir to at Nisi Prins, in London, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and Special Juries.)
THOMPSON, M.P., AND ANOTHER U. BAILEY, M.P., AND