The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-05 00:00:00

lisment-street, in which his name appeared as one of the
Provisional Committee of the Leviathan Air-engine, and he
had never authorised any person to connect his name with
any project of the kind. He was first apprised of the cir-
cumstance by receiving the printed paper by the post.
Mr. Bevin submitted that he had offered quite sufficient
proof to warrant the Court to adjudicate upn the case.
Mr. Clarkson said it would be first necessary to show by
evidence that the defendants had knowingly placed the com-
plainant's name upon the list without his authority.
Mr. Bevin—That's for the defendants to show, and I ap-
prehend that sufficient has been proved by the complainant
to induce the Court to inflict a fine of 101. upon each of the
defendants, as the complainant has stated that no authority
had ever been granted on his part.
Mr. Clarkson hoped that he would act be forced to enter
into a:fruitless inquiry, for, admitting that there was sufficient
proof that the name of the complainant was used without his
knowledge, it should be borne in mind that there was none
whatever to show that his name had been inserted by either
of the defendants, or by their authority, as would appear
from the letter he held in his hand.
Mr. Baldwin havinglooked over the letter, said that it con-
tained no authority from him.
Mr. HALL considered it would be necessary on the part of
the complainant to prove by whose direction the issue and
getting up of the prospectus in question had been established.
Mr. Bevin was of a different opinion, a• the person who
had printed the document was present, and might be exa-
mined.
Mr. Clarkson admitted that certain proof might be given
by the printer, and although it might be shown that the pros-
pectus was actually sent from the chambers of the Company,
there was nothing to fixthe charge upon the defendants. Ile
would, however, beg to ask the complainant a few questions.
The complainant, in cross-examination, said he did not
know how many provisional committees his name was upon.
He should think not as many as thirty or forty, but there
might be as many as ten. He begged to be allowed to say
that he had always encouraged railways in Ireland, for which
purpose he bad given his name to about ten. There were
also someforeign ones, about thirty in France, and in England
ten altogether ; as far as his recollection would serve him,
twelve at the utmost. Ile had seen a Dr. 3Plienzie but once,
from whom he received a letter, on the 4th of October, from
his residence, at 68, Mortimer-street, inviting him to have
his name inserted on the list of the provisional committee, as
he had been connected with various railway companies, to
which he returned an answer.

Mr. Clarkson—l see, by the newspaper accounts, that
when you applied for a summons you represented that you
had repeatedly written to the defendants to remove your
name without effect—is it true? Complainant —I did not say
as, but I certainly wrote to others that I did not wish my
name to appear, as I was about to go abroad.
Mr. Otarkson said that it was a pity the inquiry had gone
to such a length, as he had the honour to call the complain-
ant his friend, haying known him from early life, and it was
an unpleasant affair that he had not kept copies of the let-
ters which he had written to the defendants, which would
show rashness on the part of a person who held a promi-
nent position in society, as every person allowing his name
to be placed on the provisional committee list ought to know
something about the concern before he permitted it. It ap-
peared that a Dr. M'Kenzie was deeply interested in the
undertaking in question, and being called upon to pay his
quota, he gave a cheque for the amount, which turned out to
be of no value, which caused him to !cave the company in a
huff; and he apprehended that any person connected with
such a man ought tp pause before he was induced to take
the present proceedings against the defendants. This person
wrote to the complainant, reminding him that having served
on various railway committees with him, he had taken the
liberty of submitting to him a railway project with which
he was concerned, and which would obtain extensive Par-
liamentary influence, and hoping that the complainant
would allow his name to be placed on the provisiona
committee. Another letter was sent to the defendant (Een
dell) on October- 13, by the same person, inclosing the
names of the committee, among whom was that of the
complainant, although on the previous day he had written to
the same [purpose, while Mr. Bevin was instructed to say
that such a thing bad never been sanctioned, and he should
like to know on what grounds a charge of fraud had been
brought against the defendants under such extraordinary cir-
cumstances, unless for the maudlin propensity to cry down
every project of tthe kind because some were found to be
faulty. The letter from the complainant to M'Kenzie stated,
that had he not been confined to his bed his letter of applica-
tion should not have remained unanswered one hour, and ex-
pressed his regret that any circumstance should deprive him
of the benefit of such an undertaking.
Mr. Baldwin begged to make a remark in explanation.
Mr. Clarkson said he had no objection, although he had
already, given his evidence.
Mr. Baldwin said that the project which be understood he
was to lend his name to was the Shrewsbury, Chester, and
Crewe, instead of the Leviathan Air-engine. •
Mr. Clarkson considered that such a paltry subterfuge was
no excuse, for the complainant must have known that
M'Kenzie was no longer a member of the committee, and
he repeated that there was no truth in his having written to
the defendants to discontinue his name.

Mr. IlAu. observed that the prospectus had been sent ten
days previous, and before a conviction could take place under
the Act, it must be proved that the defendants had acted
falsely, an expression which was repeatedly used in it, and
that such had:beenknowingly practised by the defendants.
Mr. Clarkson said that the complainant should have
made inquiries into the character of the defendants, or pro-
duced M'Kenzie before he adopted such proceedings against
them.

Mr. HALL said that the question was not had M'Kenzie
abused the confidence of the complainant, but did the de-
fendants make use of his name against his consent ; and sup-
posing that M'Kenzie had acted ill, had the defendants, on
that account, any grounds for holding up the name of the
complainant to the public, who were, as a matter of course,
anxious to obtain the names of persons of high respectabi-
lity It was very clear that on the 4th 31‘Kenzie wrote to
the complainant, and on the 12th received an answer, that,
if not too late, he might then enter his name on the list.
The question then was, did the complainant give his sanc-
tion, and he thought that he did, for IlPKenzie handed in
the paper containing other names with that of the com-
plainant to the defendants, which precluded them from the
possibility of acting knowingly, and ought not to render
them liable to the penalty. It would certainly have been
more prudent to have had a letter from the complainant him-
self, although there could be no proof of the handwriting,
unless he had recourse to it for the purpose of obtaining a
conviction.

Mr. Clarkson applied for costs, which were refused, and

Mr. HALL, in dismissing the case, said that he was satin•
fled the complainant was not sufficiently in possession of the
case before he adopted the proceedings, and therefore could
not be actuated by any wanton feelings towards the de-
fendants, whose characters he was happy to say remained
untouched.