The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 20.

COURT OF CONIMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco, before Justices Cresswell and

Crowder.)

RANKIN V. PAYNE.-OBTAINING A DIRECTOR FOR A BANK.
Mr. Robinson appeared for the plaintiff in this case,
and the action was undefended.

It was stated that the plaintiff was chief clerk to a
stockbroker in the City, and that the defendant was
engaged in promoting public companies. Some time
ago the defendant was engaged in promoting public
companies. Some time ago the defendant was engaged
in promoting the formation of the Western Bank of
London, which had since been firmly established, and
he undertook to pay the plaintiff 501. for every director
whom he could obtain for the bank. At the instance of
the plaintiff Major-General Bagnall agreed to become a
director, and the plaintiff uow sought to recover from
the defendant 501. for obtaining the general's name.
Mr. Justice Willes said that the contract above stated
was illegal, and as it was an illegality which he thought
affected the public he directed that the case should be
postponed for the purpose, as was understood, of en-
abling an application to be made to amend the pleadings,
so as to raise the question.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sitting 4 in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron, Mr.
Baron Martin, and Mr. Baron Watson.)
KEMP V. COVINGTON—JUDGMENT.
The Chief Baron delivered the judgment of the Court
in this case, which was argued during last term. It
appeared that the plaintiff had supplied certain goods,
or performed certain services, for the firm of Covington
and Co., but the defendant Covington, it was contended,
was not liable, as it was proved that he bad ceased to be
a member of the firm before the plaintiff's debt had
accrued. The general question the Court had to deal
with was, whether a person who had been a mem-
ber of a firm was responsible for the liabilities of
that firm after that person had ceased to be a
partner in it. He was of opinion that, except under
special circumstances, he was not a partner. This
case Lad gone to the jury on the merits, and they
believed the defendant and not the plaintiff, and found
their verdict in favour of the defendant. The ground
of the motion on which the rule had been obtained was
that of misdirection, namely, that he (the Chief Baron)
should have told the jury that the plaintiff was entitled
to recover.

The Court were unanimously of opinion that it was
not incumbent on him to law down anysuch proposition.
There had been no misdirection, therefore the rule which
had been obtained must be discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.
Mr. Lush applied to their lordships for their sanction
to appeal to the Court of Error against their decision.
The Chief Baron said the Court would for the future
adopt extreme caution in sanctioning appeals to the
Court of Error, as in the case of Kingsford v. Merry
some unfortunate mistake had arisen, by which the facts
presented to this Court, and on which it formed its de-
cision, were not presented to the Court of Error. It
therefore behoved the Court to be cautions in giving
their countenance to applications to allow causes to be
taken to the Court of Error.
Mr. Baron Martin, having concurred in what had
fallen from the Chief Baron, said that the case had been
taken to the Court of Error on a statement of facts
which were in no way akin to those which came before
the Court below, which were based on the Chief Baron's
notes, and on which that Court formed its judgment.
The appeal to the Court of Error should be based on
what the Court below bad adjudicated, and not on a
statement of facts at total variance with those which
transpired in the Court below.
The Chief Baron said all cases of appeal to the Court
of Error ought to be submitted to the Court below, and
he should in future exercise great caution in reserving
points for the opinion of the Court above. In the case
of Kingsford v. Merry, which had caused some stir in
the commercial world, the Court of Error would have
decided as this Cour,. had, had the facts before that
Court been similar. Such was not the case, •however ;
they were far different.