The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-09 00:00:00

OTH ELLS.

This bill was filed by the plaintiffs, as Directors of the above
Company, to restrain the defendants, owners of certain mines in
Cornwall, from proceedings at law against the said plaintiffs
to recover a sum of 4,5001., the agreed value of the above
mimes ; and also for an order that a deed, executed be-
tween the parties, should be reformed as being contrary to
a parole agreement, or should be given up to be cancelled.
The bill stated, that a scheme was proposed by the above owners
to the plaintiffs, to form a company, to be called The Goonearl
Mining Company, of which Company the plaintiffs were to be
Directors, and were to be exonerated from all personal responsi-
bility, but were to pay (as directors), the sum of 4,500/. as the
assessed value of the mines by instalments, within a year
after the execution of a deed to that effect, the mo-
ney to have been raised by the 'sale of shares. deed was
prepared by the defendants' attorney,- who was afterwards, by
defendants' recommendation, appointed Solicitor for the Company.
That deed was executed by the plaintiffs without having read it.
The prospectus was drawn up and advertised in the public Papers,
but, from some accident, the Company was never formed. The
mine-owners, finding that the plan did not succeed, came
upon the plaintiffs personally for recovery of the sum
which had been agreed on. The Directors examined the deed, and
found that they had not been personally exonerated by it, accord-
ing.to the parole agreement. The plaintiffs also alleged that they
were not possessed of funds sufficient to meet the demands of the
defendants.

To this plea the defendants set up a demurrer, and contended
that the plaintiffs had made themselves personally responsible, by
executing the deed which was prepared by their own
Solicitor ; and though they alleged that they had nut funds
at present to meet the demand of the defendants, yet they had
made no mention of what money they had received for shares,
and squandered away improperly, when they ought to have
applied it to the payment of the owners of the mines ; and
Mr. Knight contended that they had had all the op-
portunity of enriching themselves if the scheme had taken effect,
and because it had failed, they now wanted to free themselves from
a deed they had legally executed, by saying that they would give
up all equitable claim they had upon the property. A
man might as well obtain a suit of clothes by the
interest he had with his tailor, and after wearing them
out, return them, saying that he world rather give up all
further connection with the tailor, and would release him from
any claim which he (the customer) might have on the tailor's
good opinion of him.—(A laugh. )—The learned counsel then
contended at great length that the plaintiffs should not be released
from a deed legally executed and prepared by their own agent, and
that the demurrer should be allowed.

The COURT allowed the demurrer, and refused to allow the bill
to be amended.

CAUTION TO TOLL KEEPERS.

We received the following from a correspondent at
Lane-end. We understand the case referred to, was heard
at a Magistrates' meeting at Cellar Head,a few days since.
As the subject is of importance to dissenting preachers,
and those connected with the public roads, we feel gratified
in being able to lay this decision before our readers.
On Sunday, the 10th of December last, one of the Cir-
cuit Preachers belonging to the Methodist New Con-
nexion, was travelling in a gig, from the Potteries to Staf-
ford. When he reached Hem-Heath Toll-gate, double
toll was demanded of him. He informed the Toll-keeper
that it was . illegal to demand any thing; that he was
a Licenced Methodist Preacher, going to Stafford, his re-;
ligious place of worship for the day; that four years ago, a
toll-keeper near the city of Chester, told him that he was
exempt, by an Act of Parliament willeb then came into
force ; that from that time to the present, he had never
in a single instance been required to pay. This re-
monstrance was ineffectual, the money was perempk,rily
demanded, accompanied with threatenings as to the con-
sequences, if it was not paid. " The Act," said the
Preacher, " which I liave alluded to, came in force a few
years back, and allows the privilege of exemption to Dis-
senters." "No one," said the Toll-keeper, "is exempt,
but the Clergyman of the parish. We go by old Acts of
Parliament !" At length the Preacher complied with
the demand, and pursued his way. The day following, he
obtained a sight of the General Turnpike Act, to which
he alluded, as contained in Burn's Justice, edited in 1825,
by Sir George Chetwynd. The clause relating to exemp-
tions is as follows :—" No toll shall be demanded or taken
by virtue of this or any other Act or Acts of Parliament,
on any turnpike road, for any horse or carriage, of or
from any person or persons going to or returning from
his, her, or their parochial church or chapel ; or of or from
any other person or persons going to or returning from
his, her, or their usual place of religious worship tolerated
by law, on Sundays, or on any other day on which Divine
Service is by authority ordered to be performed." The
editor of Burn's Justice, Vol. 11., page 075, says in a note,
" It will be observed, that a member of the Established
Church is liable to pay toll out of his parish; the Dissen-
ter is not." The preacher understanding the toll-keeper
to be poor, sent a message, stating, that if the money was
returned, accompanied with suitable acknowledgments, no
further notice would be taken of the affair; but the pro-
posal was rejected, and a determination expressed to abide
the consequences. Accordingly the gatekeeper was sum-
moned to appear before the Magistrates, and a few days
since the case was fully investigated. The toll-keeper was
ordered to return what he had received, and to pay ex-
pellees. The preacher had no wish for the full penalty
(which is 51.) to be enforced. Had the Magistrates
brought it forward, he would have requested that it might
be given up; his object being not to injure the toll-keeper,
but to ascertain his right according to law.

On Wednesday afternoon a sneaking thief entered
the scullery of Joseph Jellicoe, Esq., 13, Upper Wimpole-street,
and stole some silver table spoons and forks,