The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENC/I.=-GUILDHALL.
(Before Lord TENTERDEN and a Special Jury.)
DEVON AND CORNWALL MINING COMPANY.

- LAWLOR V. KERSHAW AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
is a stationer in the city, to recover .541., the amount
of stationery supplied to the defendants, Messrs.
Wilks, M.P., Moore, M.P., Kershaw, and others,
as Directors of the Devon and Cornwall Mining
Company.
Mr. GURNEY stated the plaintiff's case, in which
he took occasionrto give a history of the Devon and
Cornwall Mining Company from its establishment
at a meeting at' the Albion Tavern, on the 7th of
April, 1824, to its. dissolution. The fact that
the articles of stationery for which the plain-
tiff .now demanded • payment, were actually sup-
plied for the use of the Company, was undis-
puted, and- the defence endeavoured to be set up
was, that all the defendants had not signed the
deed of settlement at the time the goods were or-
dered. Ile should endeavour to prove, however,
that all the defendants had signed the deed of set-
tlement, with the exception of Sir John Perring,
who had not signed the deed, but who was ap-
pointed a Director, had taken the number of shares
to qualify him for that office and had actually paid
the requisite deposits. Under these circumstances
he expressed his confidence that the jury would find
for the plaintiff.
In support of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Currey, the
Secretary to the Devon and Cornwall Mining
Company was called, and examined at some length.
In the course of his examination, a variety of facts
were elicited to prove that the defendants were
Directors of
the' Company, and had acted in that
G
capeneralacity. On his cross-examination by the Attorney-
, the witness stated that W. John Wilks,
Jae, purchased certain mines in Cornwall, for
15,000/e which lie afterwards sold to the Company
for 120,0004, and that above 5%0004 was- received
of the subscriptions, all of which went into the
pockets of Mr. Wilks, Who alsO held 2,000 shares in
the Company- •
Mr. J. Wood, the first secretary of the Com
om pany c
borated the evidence of the former witness, ,
—.
He produced the minute books of the Company,
which proved the attendance of various of the de-
fendants as Directors. On his cress-examination,
he stated, that at the first meeting of the Company,
on the 7th April, . only five persons attended, by. Whom the resolutions then put forward, were con-
cocted. The Witness also swore, that he had never
been charged with prevarication ; but upon the re-
(examination of Mr. Currey, he stated, that the witness
Jones) was suspended in consequence of a deficiency
of about 2,000/. appearing on the Company's books.
Jones also Stated, that all the articles charged for in
Vtaintiff's account, were ordered by him, and used for
the benefit of the Company. Witness was directed
to provide the articles,- but the Directors afterwards
resolved to appoint another house as their stationers.
Regg proved, that Sir J. Perring paid
6e deposit on fifty shares into Kay's Bank on the
th April, 182.1
,r The case for the plaintiff having closed, the AT-
I°I(NEGENERAL addressed the Jury for the de-
tredants. He said, that in this case Mr.'Wilks was
teal plaintiff, and sought to cover himself. from
the debts incurred in a- concern in which lie had
hie,eilf :the only gainer. Mr. Wilks had authorised
e.,„;heod, Jones, to order the books and stationery
; -1:4; t.,he plaintiff, at a period when several of the
(tie;ll,°ants could have incurred no liability, because
Had no connection with the Company. Sir J.
ofeetrir't,t and Mr. Barber had not signed the deed
tLet,dement, nor had any connection whatever with
wh-e "evon and Cornwall Mining . Company,
hill° the first articles mentioned in plaintiff's
the .hWere ordered ; and subsequently when
thei uirectors met, they appointed other parties
()f 4,1', stationers. The law was, that if any
, 'Re defendants were- not liable, a verdict must
'e,84,, generally for the defendants; and Mr. Barber
1115'1 Sir J. Perring could not be liable by their mere
41ioation as Directors. '
GURNEY having been heard in reply,
thard TENTERDEN observed, in charging the Jury,
Zhe circumstance of the defendants having sub-
'"ently signed, the deed of settlement afforded
tts-4,1 ,evidence that they sanctioned their nomination
which took place at a Meeting held on
I3th April. 'There was no evidence to prove
I,r'at Mr. Barber and Sir John Perring were partners
i'aZi°ll,3 to that period, and therefore they were not
I.;„''''e for the articles ordered antecedently. As had
that stated by the Attorney-General, the law was,
4:t if the Jury believed any of the defendants were
fe:dliable, they must find a verdict for all the do-
tal:1
' °N- If- all the defendants, however, were
'e to any part of the plaintiff's demand, the iJury
find for the plaintiff with that amount.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 35/e .
diahis was an CLIFFORD V. LAYTON.
action for various articles of haber-
, ery, furnished by, the plaintiff, yho is a shop-
,teepee at Bishop Stortford, to the defendant's wife:
h, The defendant was a half-pay Captain, and
ad been separated from his wife, who enjoyed
" income of coot. a year for several
Years. The separation
the action; and it app was pleaded in bar to
cognizant of the fact, ears, that the plaintiff was
separate.
that the parties were living
Verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PL
CHIEr
EAS, .
1.13
(London Adjourned Sittings, 1,04 re
the
JUSTICE and a Cowl:,lon Jury,. -
THE AEGIS LIFE AND FIRE
COMPANY. INSURANCE
.._ It V. LANGSLOW AND 0r,,,,,ti5.
This was an action brought by the Paintiff to re-
eorer the amount of three-quarters salary, alleged to
be due to him, as- Secretary of the Fire Department
°f tie /Egis Life and Fire "Insurance Company, whieh
is now defunct. The defendants were Directors of the
Company.

Sergeant ADAMS, for the plaintiff, called two
I)!ficers of the Company, the secretary of the Life
Department, and one of the surveyors, to prove tae
services of Ryde.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendants, cross-
Nmined the witnesses. They stated that the Com-
fly owed its origin to the prolific brain of Mr.
.!Vilks: he it ,was who received all the subscrip-
'lons ; a cheque for 4931.,, payable to No. 1, and
signed by Peter Moore, John Was, and Mr. Ver..
, %lie, was drawn out ; the secretary of the life de-
Ntment, since dead—(a.laugh)—received his sa-
tY out of the amount of the cheque, and handed
he remainder over to the plaintiff. The witnesses
Here unable to say whether the plaintiff -continued
t° discharge his duties after the Company had been
b rolteu up, and all its furniture and effects were
aei2ed
on the Lord Mayor's Day, 1826.
the
The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to address
te Jury. The Company in question was one of
hose
ih bubbles which had been puffed into existence for.,
the Purpose of entrapping the unwary; and the very
p,,lllent that any person, seduced by the prospectus,
gj his head within the office door, to see what was
fo,,ihg on, he was fixed on as a Director, and very soon
itui'd that all the money of the concern made its way
1),..° one cltonel, the formidable No. 1, which had
h: Produced in order to show that the plaintiff
lk,fteeeived one quarter's salary. No one could be
tti enough to say what became of the rest of the
1) o,d
e leY, and for aught the witnesses knew, it might
I'4 remained in the hands of this very Secretary.
action Was however a short and easy answer to the
Ilet in' namely, that the plaintiff was himself a part-
the Company This would be shown from
Vll,ents in the- *Plaintiff 's own band-writing.—
titlqe Gth of June, 1826, there was a Meeting
11)kt tZ board of Directors, at which it was reiehied
Ikti'le. Secretary should draw up a statemeut of the
kqo of the Company. This he accordingly did,
NigePared two lists of the several parties having
Petso4o the Company. One list comprised those
5 who were not partners, the ether list