The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-23 00:00:00

oatit.Tgo/1
totry

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY

BARTLETT V. HORTON AND OTHERS.
This was a 'motion on the part of the plaintiffs for the
Payment into Court of 2,5551.
His LORDSHIP delivered judgment, and went through
tile facts a rho Th. ph.if. were parties bene-
ficially interested in the estate of a testator named An-
drew Griffin, and the defendants were the legal personal
• l'epre;:entatives of Samuel Horton, who was the trustee.
The te.stator died in 1825, and by his will directed his
prorerty to be sold, and the amount realised by the same
to be invested, and the interest to be paid to his wife
during her lifetime, and after her demise to devolve upon
other persons. The property of the testator, including
three bills of exchange for 755/. 13s. 6c1., which the
executor, Samuel Horton, claimed, alleging that
Ile had advanced money to that amount to the
Widow of the testator to carry on business, - was
Sold.. The transaction was stated to have taken
Place 1826, and the business was disposed of
Shortly afterwards, and it cortaiidy appeared strange
then
the money should bare been advanced under
ulexe circumstances. It appeared that the defendants
disbursed the assets of Samuel Harton towards the
PaYment of his debts, and the plaintiffs claimed to be
• entitled to the amount of the bills of exchange, ex/ging
t}48,4 Samuel Horton was not authorised by the terms of
fe trust to advance money to Mrs. Griffin. He (Lord
id&figdale) did not think the plaintiffs were entitled to
A.ave their motion granted, and he would give the de-
. %Wants the costs to which they had been put by such

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(THIS DAY

Th HOOPER V. LAMB.
is was an action brought by Mr. Ho per, the well.
4lown advertisement agent, to recover from Mr. Lamb
4Zile of the provisional committee of the Great Western,
aatern Counties, and Ifs rich and Southampton Rail-
titlys, 614, but virtually for 201, that being his share of
exrenses incurred for advertising in the different
fitly and weekly newspapers.
'lr. Martin, Q.C., and another Learned Gentleman,
!a Pear for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr.
iTrren, for the chfendant.
!kr. MARTIN opened the case, and stated that several
_ealbers of the committee had subscribed their quota,
discharged part of the claim.
ZaPtain James Patrick M'Dougall, one of the pro-
sLonal committeemen, proved having on the 20th of
Pteniber, 184 ts, received Mr. Lamb's consent to insert
name in the prospectus of the company.
hoolr• Graham, the secretary, produced the minute-
bib.. 4, and proved that the managing committee directed
to give Mr. 'Hooper inaructions to publish the ad-
coertisement. The plaintiff had receive 00/.
Theft the
ge-112,„131M,Y, and a balance of 61L was still due. rst
ral meeting of the company was held on the 15th
znePtenaber, 1845, and at that meeting a committee of
4:aagernent was appointed. At this period the defend-
liad not become a provisional committeeman.
th—utr'Eurr contended that there was no evidence to fix
e defendant with this liability. He had been moped to to no meeting attended none, and had no corn-
ZitlhiceaLtion. with any Parties connected with the scheme.
liae had done was merely to give his consent to his
"1 being added to the provisional committee. The
elienority for the insertion of the advertisements pro-
ceeded from the managing committee appointed on the
:La September, which was before the defendant became
connected with the company. Mr. Justice Cresswell had
e ,h 1 that, in such a case, there was no evidence of lia-
tititY, and, therefore, he submitted, under his Lord-
44iP's direction, that the defendant wad entitled to their
verdict.
Lord DENMAN said the first consideration in such
eases was to do justice between the parties, and it would
he for the jury to say, whether the plaintiff had been
employed by the defendant to do the particular work he
did. He apprehended that the defendant was aware,
rWhen he gave authority to have his name put down as a
ovisional committeeman, that it would be made
thtl,,c):4l to the world in that character. Then
by'tliWould consider what inference a person employed
to tb:,ml„dertaking had a right to draw with respect
the 11;,,'4aility of the defendant, and whether the acts o
Pane -,„-naging committee in the formation of the com-
theC "ere binding upon all. The prospectus held out
that It
Was a desirable investment, and proceeded to say.
ter rc)wers would be applied for in the Bill to allow in-
nrlest at the rate of 41. per cent., &c.
.All men
--meerst
tem ood by that, that a Bill for the formation of the.
the stianY Was to be applied for in Parliament. So, in
aose_,,Ettae way, if the words provisional committee were
it meant for the purpose of forming a company,
Who
therefore it was inferrdd that a person
*he, had become a member sought persons
, were ready to form contracts to do the ne-
t-v_rsrasary. works. If advertisements were essential to the
anon of a company. and these advertisements must
the
ordered, not by the whole of the committee, but
e necessities of the case re - as
e for the plaintiff, because heuired, had quired their verdict would
mamrightto
fable
person on the provisional look to
ittee as persons
'hie for the work he had done.
A. verdict was found for the plaintiff for 61/, with
tx,ee .
th atton only for 201., being the defendant',
transaction, but with liberty to the defendants share in
to
ter a nonsuit.

HOOPER V. BYROM.
HOOPER V. UPFILL.
Lei ese were actions of a similar nature, the defendants
coe,llg two provisional committeemen m the same
,i;Pany.
to 'lle enternon Parties agreed to a similar verdict, with liberty
suit, as in the last case.

Th REED BROTHERS V. SOMERS.
Nfr e plaintiffs in this case are wine-merchants, in
4E 11street and the defendant, Mr. Patrick Somers,
• for Sligo.kr
Tfir• Merrewether appeared for the plaintiffs, and
.earnfrey, Q.C., for the defendant.
e -es action was brought to recover the sum of 81/. for
of aPplied to the plaintiff in April and July
Anreh•"" 3 •The setup Year• defence t was that the defendant
they
Wised the wines with the express understanding that
weire not to be paid for until the Christmas follow-
Itith Whereas on the 10th September the defendant,
or o°tllist having received any previous intimation by letter
4 friuhelwise, was served with a writ for the amount.
on the-," °f. Mr. Somers, who was allowed a commission
,1111.teti,"is'nes he sold for the plaintiffs, was called, and
toted
wh;:a't he had induced the defendant to purchase
Lore-„8 an such an understanding.
Were of left it to the jury to say whether they
quest' °Pinion that the wines were sold to be paid on
14 require(on an understanding that payment would not
Thy d until Christmas next.
Kis tiurr,„Y gave a verdict for the defendant.
--rou • • jury that their labours
re at a
c, intimated to the
,OSe
The Court• ttra) then rose, and will not sit again until next

1..,9111;1114:3/N PLEAS—(THIS DAY.)
rd Chief the last day of the sittings after theterm,t
clioaes Justice, who presided, took common jury The
'_pnd disposed of several undefended ones.
4risin~aiiluer of the day was occupied with a horse case,
lata j. out of a sale at Aldridge's repository, the panic
41'114. which were of interest only to the parties con-

et 4 CREQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
4'
u• lIEWSOM. FALSE IMPRISONMENT ON A CHARGE
14 thi OF FORGING RAILWAY SCRIP.
Pearo a cause Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Humphrey ap-
appe_" for the plaintiff : Mr. Watson and Mr. Greenwood
I,ha.red for the defendant.
,e•clverls, wa an action in which the plaintiff sought to re-
'et 021ensation in damages for having been given
kripe.ust° Y upon a charge of uttering forged railway
. ' h,
Vpel.°— the opening statements of Sir F. THESIGER, it
the tired that the transaction in question arose. out oft
tlior!ra'e of Faulkner and Fabian. The plaintiff was. a
th_ 14411 c
b e eon °• Commerce, as a jobber in railway shares; during
'',iell --rae of his transactions a person of the name. of
ha_ ards t,
~ro -
uh:ht to him fifty shares in the Bucking-
-1441e Railway, and desired plaintiff to sell them tor
tai3,,:iand that he would give him the usual broker's coernr:
aciti
,c,',1,1- These shares were accordingly sold to a,.pl_ -
her :' Pie name of Robins. Just at this period R.O k .
foke-rn' shun were arrested upon the charge of da37,-"Y, et scrip in this same railway, and within a few
thanes°L. that period, defendant, who had purchased the
ho l of Robins, which turned out to be forged, caused
eon)DPla!ntiff to be given into custody on the charge now
1114k1 4ined Of: The plaintiff was examined before the
orderedt,r!t/ate at Guildhall, upon which occasion he was
, to be remanded for four days, and at the end
that period was brought up in company with
atah Iler and Fabian. It was under these cireum-
-"eels that the present action was brought ; and he