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

BARNET V. SOUTRWELL.

In this cause, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, in the city of London, and in which a verdict
was given for the defendant, Mr. CROWDER, on the part
of the plaintiff, moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be had, upon the grounds of mis-
direction. The plaintiff was a printer and stationer, and
sought to recover from the defendant, whose name ap-
peared as a provisional committeeman on the Direct
Louden and Dublin Railway, for supplying stationary
and printin,'° to the order of the secretary of the above
company. The evidence given to Ex the defendant
with the liability- was a letter, which was put
in, written by a brother of the defendant's to a person of
the name .of Collins, in answer to a letter written by the
latter to him, but which was not produced at the trial,
although notice to produce it had been served upon the
parties, in which the writer acknowledged the receipt
of the letter from Collins, and stated that he had for-
warded the letter to his brother, and that they would be
happy to co-operate with him, or lend him any assist-
ance in the formation of a company, which lay in their
power ; and further stated, "You may use my name and
the name of my brother in your prospectus." Upon the
receipt of this letter, the name of defendant was accord-
ingly printed among the list of the provisional commit-
tee. The Lord Chief Justice held that no proof was
given of the defendant's agreement to act upon the com-
mittee, nor any authority from him to any person to use
his name, and a verdict was accordingly returned for the
defendant. —Rule refused.
SALISBURY AND LEAMINGTON JUNCTION RAILWAY.—

BANKS V. GOOD.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron,
and a verdict was returned for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared, was an advertising agent, and the
defendant a gentleman residing in the Isle of Wight,
whose name appeared among -the list of the provisional
committee of the Salisbury and Leamington Junction
Railway. It appeared from the evidence given at
the trial, that the company was registered en the
sth of September, 1845, and it was not till the month of
October following that the name of the defendant appeared
as one of the provisional committee, and that up to
that period all the expenses had been paid by Mr.
Wheal, the solicitor, who got up the company, who had
also during that period employed the plaintiff. It fur-
ther appeared that a person of the name of Downes was
employed by the solicitor to collect names to form a
provisional committee. The name ,of Downeeillso ap-
peared on the list, but an indemnity was, however,
given to him by the solicitor. e applied
to the defendant for authority to insert his
name in the list of the provisional committee, which
was granted. lie had, however, never attended any
meetings of the committee, nor taken any part in the
management of the affairs of the company.
Mr. GODSON now moved for a new trial, on the ground
of misdirection, and contended that the Lord Chief
Baron, in leaving the case with the jury, ought not to
have left them to decide upon the legal point as to
whether a party, who had authorised his name to be used
as a provisional committeeman, was or was not liable.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he had a very
strong opinion upon the case, and considered that the
verdict as given by the jury was perfectly right and
proper.—Rule refused.

COMMON PLEAS.—_ THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
BARKER V. STEAD.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict in this case should not be set
aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial granted, on
the grouni that the verdict was against evidence, or that
the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict.
The action was brought by Mr. Barker, the advertising
agent, against Mr. Stead, a provisional director of the
Eastern and Northern Counties Junction Railway Com-
pany. The case was:tried at the last Maidstone Assizes,
and a verdict given for the plaintiff for 500/. The
aura sought to be recovered was 910/. 9a. The sum was
reduced to 500/., on the ground, that admitting the lia-
bility of the defendant, there was no evidence that any
of the debt had been contracted before the 2d of October.
It was also alleged that too many advertisements had
been inserted. The railway in question was projected
by a Mr. Morris, who appointed a Mr. Wright as secre-
tary. Wright wrote to Mr. James Stead, Bradford, to be-
come a provisional committeeman. That letter was
proved to have been posted. The Manager of the York-
shire Banking Company deposed that there were two
James Steads in Bradford. A letter, assenting to Wright's
application, was produced, though it was not shown that
the defendant was the James Stead in question. In the
defence it was averred that the provisional com-
mittee did not meet till the 27th of October, 1845; and
on that day the managing committee was appointed.
Early in November the scheme was abandoned. Mr.
Stead had never attended any of the meetings held in
the meantime. On the slight and inconclusive evidence,
therefore, of the letter sent to Mr. Stead, and his
answer, with the statement of Mr. Duckett, the manager
of the banking company, was the verdict returned. •
Rule granted.
PABRATT V. BLUNT AND CORNFOOT—THE SOUTHERN AND

EASTERN, AND NORTHERN JAMAICA RAILWAY.
Mr. HUMPHREY moved for a rule to set aside the ver-
dict in this case, and nonsuit the plaintiff, or for a new
trial.

This was another action brought by Mr. Parratt, an
advertising agent, against two of the provisional direc-
tors of the Southern, Eastern, and Northern Jamaica
Railway Company, for advertisements inserted in
the papers between the 9th and 25th of September,
1845. The verdict was for the plaintiff, damages
6004 It was tried at the last sittings after term in
Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Coltman. He submitted
that there was no evidence against Blunt to justify the
verdict, and very slight evidence indeed against Corn-
foot. The defendants attended but one meeting, on the
Ist of December—the first meeting ever held and
about the_satne time they intimated in writing to the
secretary that they retired from the concern.
Rule to show cause granted.

PALACE COURT-(THIS DAY).
(Before B. BRENT, Esq.)
WRIGHT V. PRATT.
Mr. KEYSER stated the case. This was an action to
recover the sum of 5/., the balance of a bill of exchange
accepted by the defendant. Unfortunately the bill was
not in Court, but it had been set forth in the declaration,
and the defendant, by not pleading, had admitted his
liability.

The Learned JUDGE said, perhaps that rule had been
laid down, but it would be much more satisfactory to the
jury for the bill to be produced, and it had better be
sent for.

Mr. KEYSER said he was afraid it had been mislaid,
and it was only incurring extra expense to make an
affidavit.

The attorney said no doubt the bill would be found
before execution issued. It was a bill payable by instal-
ments, and there was only one instalment due.
The Learned JUDGE said that he would let the case
go to the jury, bat the bill must be produced before
taxing costs.

The attorney said they might never find it, but an
affidavit should be made.

The Learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, and said
that in all cases he wished the bill produced for the
satisfaction of the jury, though as the defendant had not
pleaded, there was no immediate necessity for the pro-
duction.

The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

SOUTH W ARK.—IT HIS DAY.)
Thomas Riley, a well-dressedloung man, was brought
before Mr. Seeker, charged v ith assaulting police-con-
stable Lewis while in the execution of his duty.
at the Surrey Theatre, whenhe
duty at the entrance
parties who were en-
The policeman stated that last evening he was on
to desist. Finding
of annoyance, he
that he still carried on his system
removing him,
took him by the arm for the purpose of
fe nil ae nt
requested . annoyingh i
m
perceivedt
ering the thhoeu house.
He then, with some difficulty, too
lace.
stn tion-house.
when be suddenly turned round and struck him .inhhiimm
The prisoner, defence, to o the
the
at the time,
•d the plea of intoxication was no Mr. SECKER sai
in said that he was intoxicated
He was then committed in default of pa.
female, was charged
Margaret Cunningham, a young f
glass . ,
ex-
tenuation, and that he must pay a fine ofv ilnOgst.he
with wilfully smashing several
man's shop window. penalty.
plt appeared a lodger in thea
complainant'spanes o
hionuas
meet-
inget,rades
accompany him home to supper. en opened the
He 'then .
proceeding up stairs to
with the defendant in the Kent-road, invited her to
door with a latch-key, and .was
went out and
his apartment with his new acquaintance, when the
landlord, hearing footsteps on the stairs,
insisted on the prisoner's expulsion. The prisoner,
irritated at being treated with such incivility, on getting
into the street. sent a shOwer of gravel and small stones
at the windows, and smashed several panes of glass.
The prisouer exert ssed her sorrow at having broken
the windows, and said that she had been out for a holi-
day, she was tired, and that meeting with the com-
plainant's lodger she accompanied him to, have some
supper, when she was so unceremoniously thrust out of
the house.
Mr. SEcicEn said she had acted with great folly in
availing herself of the invitation of an utter stranger.
She must pay for the wilful damage or be committed.
WORSHIP-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
This morning, a • whole host of juveniles were brought
to this office, charged with letting off fireworks in the
public thoroughfares. Among the rest was a lad
named Fi ederick Dalton, thirteen years of age, who, it
appeared, when cautioned by the police-constable, was
urged on to the continuation of the nuisance by his
mother ; and one of the squibs which he afterwards let
off struck the constable upon the side of his face. He
then took him into custody. He was fined ss.
James Hillingsworth, a mechanic, was charged by
William Butler, an officer employed at the Britannia
Saloon, with creating a disturbance and attempting to
defraud the proprietors thereof.
Butler stated that last evening the prisoner came to
the saloon and paid 3d. for his entrance into the pit.
MT() he became very obnoxious, and at length clam-
bered over a railing five feet high, and which separated
the pit from a more expensive part of the house. The
prisoner, who had before been repeatedly cautioned,
was now forced from the theatre, and given into custody.
The prisoner, who begged hard for forgiveness, was
mulct in the penalty of Os, v