The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-09 00:00:00

WILD V.IIOPKINS.

Mr. MARTIN, with whom was Wallis, for the plaintiff,
stated that this was an action brought by the well-known
map-seller at Charing-cross, to recover from the defendant,
.Ir. Douglas Hopkins, ose of the provisional committeemen
of the Peterborough and Nottingham Railway, the balance
of a bill of 1,9001. for engraving maps and plans for the use
of the company. The defendant had given a written autho-
rity to one of the promoters of the line, to insert his name
in the provisional committee, and the letter having been
handed to Mr. Gridley, one of the solicitors of the company,
the defendant's name was printed in a prospectus with
several others, which prospectus was shown to the plaintiff
at the time the orders were given to him to execute the work
in question. The plaintiff did the engraving for the com-
pany, upon the faith that the persons named in the pro-
spectus were liable to him, and there was no doubt that
those who had authorised the insertion of their names were
liable. The company Was not proceeded with, because a
sufficient sum of money had not been subscrils-41, but several
of the provisional committee, feeling their liability, had sub-
scribed to pay proportionate shares to defray preliminary
expenses. In this way 1,000/. had been paid to the plaintiff.
The defendant was one of those who declined to meet his fair
share of the responsibility accruing to a provisional commit-
teeman, and this action was brOught against him to compel
him to bear his share in common with others.
It appeared upon the examination of Mr. Gridley, one
of the solicitors of the proposed company, that the pro-
spectus containing the defendant's name was shown to the
plaintiff when the orders were given for the execution of
the maps, plans, and sections. The witness also stated, on
cross-examination, that there was a managing com-
mittee appointed, but that the defendant was not one of
that body.
Mr. WATSON, for the defendant, contended that his client,
who had taken no part in the management of the company,
was not liable, more especially as there was a managing
committee appointed, under whose authority the order was
given and the work executed. The Learned Coun!,el re-
ferred particularly to the case of Low v. Wi.son, tried last
term, in which Baron Parke was reported to have laid it
down that a provisional committeeman, who did not inter-
fere, could not be held liable for merely lending his name
where there was a managing committee.

The Lo:-to CIIIEF lbaex-thought the question in this, as
is other cases of the same nature was,—did the defendant,
by sanctioning the publication of his name as one of the
provisional committee, bold himself out to the plaintiff
as a person pledging his credit as liable to the reason-
able and bond fide preliminary expenses of the
company? It wound be difficult to say in this case that
the mere tact of there being a managing cummittee should
exempt he defendant from responsibility. A managing
commit!** wa. often nothing more than a body of persons
*elected by and from the provisional c_aninitiee, as persons
who were more likely to able to give their personal at-
tention to the business of the company. It would not be
fair to say the members thus selected should be exclusively
tor all preliminary expenses. But in this case there
was another important fact A prospectus was shown to the
i thew
cages
plaintiff when the order was given fur the work, in which
the defendant's name appeared as provisional committeeman,
but nothing was said in that prospectus of a managing com-
mittee, nearly estl:ere appointed,were
and x Thieniecisubesettei
question
who was to be liable for iho,e expenses if '
ua-rotyuldinabe the pro-
vi ional committee was not. In this case the only question
was, co alle
mm
te a'as
was, whether the defendant held himself out as liable for
preliminary expenses by authorising the insertion of his name
us a committeeman.

The jury, without a moment's hesitation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff— Damages 757', 3s. 9d,
Mr. MARTIN stated, after the verdict had beet recorded,
that if the defendant paid his quota of the ex;,enses, as
others of the committee had done, tl:e judgment against
him on this verdic: would not be put in force.

SECONDARIES' COURT, July 6
(Before Mr. Secon a,y PorrEtt

BARLOW -BKoWN7EESPONSIBILITIES OF 'EXECUTORS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a clerk
in the London and County Joint-stock Bank, at Bishop's
Stortford, against the defendant, who resides at Manchester,
to recover the sum of 61. 17s. 6d. for money had and received
to and for the use of the plaintiff, under peculiar circum-
stances. It appeared, front the evidence, that the plaintiff
and others were entitled to shares in a legacy left by a Mr.
Grantham, of Hind, near Wigan. A Mr. way was
appointed one of the executors, but he being,
from some unexplained cause, unable to attend to the
duties of the office, spoke to his son-in-law to carry
out the object of the testator. It further appeared
that the defendant did so, and the question now arose whe-
ther he had any claim against the legatees its obtaining
evidence of their rights.
It was contended by Mr. PETERSDORFF that the
executor was bound to make all those inquiries at the cost
of the estate, and that he could not delegate his duty to an
agent, so as to render the legatees liab'e to the agent.
The SECONDARY was of the same opinion, but a verdict
was taken fur the plaintiff on the point of law.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.

(Before Baron ALnicasos, Mr. JaBticeLuams, and the

LORD M A YOR ).

John Bannister Falkner and Bentham Fabian, merchants,
who were remanded from last session, were placed this morn-
ing at the bar, indicted for the forgery of railway scrip to a
large amount.
Mr. CLARKSON, who appeared for the prosecution, applied
to have the trial postponed, on account of the absence of
Richards, a principal witness for the prosecution, who,
t edTthhee each, and four
though not examined before the magistrate, had yet given
an undertaking to appear.
s, and admit-
Mr. BALLANTINE, as counsel for the prisoners, opposed the
application, unless his clients were admitted to haft,
surdies in 40/. each.
CopriusonnTerresmtoitbteadil,thteheclansseeltvoensexint sse6sosito.ii
POST-OFFICE ROBBERIES..... william Lee, a letter carrier
at the General Post-office, St. Martin's-le-Grand, was placed
at the bar, indicted for stealing a post letter, containing a
sovereign, addressed to Miss Ebhard, Chelsea College,
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clarkson prosecuted; and Mr. Bal-
lantine was retained for the defence.
Elizabeth Ehhard, who resides at Cheltenham, being sworn,
said she was staving in June last, at Exmouth, whence she
sent e letter to her sister ioclosing two small notes, and a
sovereign tehled in tissue paper. The witness identified the
envelope, the two notes, and the tissue paper produced in Court,
as the same which she had folded up.
Thirri Lew, the servant maid, proved putting the letter in
the post-office.
Wei. Stevenson, a clerk at the General Post-office, said the
prisoner was a letter carrier there. Witness was at the tact
on the 26th June, when the Exmouth bag came, which he
opened, and deposited the contents on the table. These letters
should have been carried by the prisoner and four other
persons to the stamping table. Six persons in all had access
to the letters.
Robert Tyrrell, one of the constables at the Postri)ifice,
said he was stationed at the basement of the office, watching
at the close wired grating over the water-closets, to see what
might b..• going on. This grating gave him the perfect conn •
mind of all that was trans:aetA there. The prisoner was
seen going into the water-closet about eight o'clock, and
after being there a short time was obierved to drop before
him a piece of writing-liver. lie again put his hands in his
coat-pocket, and brought out a =mall piece of white thin
paper, roiled up in shape of a coin, which he unfoldtxl once
or twice, and put something in uis pocket. The constable
signalled to hit neighbour, who took his lit ,ce the grating,
and he went down and laid hoed id the primmer, asking him
sit the same time, .what he hat! put down the water-closet
Tie poisoner answered, " Nothing, except what he had been.
using." Ile was then searched; when, besides some small
-change, a sovereign was found in his waistcoat-pocket, and is
the' pocket of his coat a canvas -bag tightly tied up contain-
ing a 60Yoreiga and thirteen obilliDgs. A plumber, Iva: got