Star.
London, England, 1827-10-17 00:00:00

slot say to what aosouut—nearly 2,0001. Wood was

suspended.
Mr. Wood, examined by Mr. GURNEY, said he had
never heard of it before.
The ATTORNLY-GENERAL in reply, said, the last wit-
ness, Wood, had been bold enough to affirm that he had
never been charged with any deficiency. There was an
old proverb, better known in the Latin, Rescuer a wells,
and he presumed that Wood's confidence in his own
integrity was the result of the good company he bad
kept among the Directors, the standing counsel, attor-
nies, agents, and contrivers of this unhappy Mining
Company. If this had been really the action of the
plaintiff, he (the Attorney-General) would have felt
some regret; but as it was proved to be the action of
Me. John Wilks, he owned he should not be sorry that
he would be defeated in his claim. Mr. Wilks was a
proprielor,l and he was in that happy situation, that
alibob all the other proprietors had paid their shares
of thklv, he had contrived'to put a large sum into his
own porter. The first meeting—that of the 7th of
April—was a meeting of four persons, with Mr. Wilk's
honourable friend, Mr. Wood, fri ming the fifth; and
hi was recommended to be the secretary. Among their
resolutions, one is to give Mr. Wilks 128,0001. for cer-
tain mines, of the existence of which they had no proof,
and still leashed they evidence that Mr. Wilks had any
title to dispose of them. Indeed, in the rage for public
companies which then prevailed, any prospectus pub-
lished by an ingenious man was sure to be attended with
subscrii.tions. However, no man who did not attend
that meeting of the 7th of April, could be_ made liable
for any of the debts contracted before the 13th of April,
unless he made himself liable under his owtr hand, for
unless he had so done, he would be protected by the
statute of frauds.
Lord Tatirrenoin—They must show all the defend-
ants to be partners at that time, but there was no evi-
dence that Mr. Barber was a partner before the 16th
of April.
The ATTORNEY GENRRAL--.on the 13th of April
there was a second meeting, at which some, but not a
majority of the defendants, attended. At that meeting
& ie Secretary was ordered to provide books, and a sta-
tioner was appointed, but the defendants were not lia-
ble, whatever Mr. Wilks was, for the goods supplied by
the plaintiff, for what was the meaning of the appoint-
tent of a stationer to the Company, if the Secretary
timid order goods of another stationer? Tire law did
not authorise a servant to go against his master's orders."
Aut when the Jury came to look at the bill, they would
see that the greatest portion was not for books, but was
for other articles of stationery ordered by Wood at his
own suggestion, and without any authority, for there
Was no book furnished until the 27th of June, and the
plaintiff's claim, if he bad airy, was confined to the
books. People were partners either in respect of their
joint interest or in respect of having pledged their cre-
dit. Therefore, if any of the defendants had attended
es a Director, and had done any act as such, although
such defendant had no interest, and was only the victim
of another man's fraud, still he was liable; but this rule
did not apply to Mr. Barber. That Gierrtleman might,
after he had made a payment on his shares, have com-
pelled the Directors by bill in equity to have admitted
him as a partner, but the simply paying a sum of mo-
ney did not make him one. The Jury would not con-
found liability to each other with liability to the partner.
The question was, whether Mr. Barter was liable to
others? He might, after paying for his scrip, be liable
to the Company, but he was not liable to the public
until he did actually become a partner. The scrips
were carried about in market, boug,litao-das, and sold
to-morrow; would each man through whom they passed
become a partner? Until he signed the deed, in Au-
gust, Mr. Barber was not,a partner al all, and therefore'
he is not answerable for This demand, the goods having
been supplied before that time. Sir John Perring never
acted, he did nothing but pay the first deposie; he lost '
. that, and he did not choose to pay any more—how *as
he a partner-2 The defence rested on two grounds;
first. Mr. Wood never bad authority to give the order
for any thing at all, because the Company, such as they
were, had appointed their own stationer ; and, secondly,
neither Mr. Barber nor Sir John Perring were liable,
Sir John Petting not having signed the deed.
Mr. Gunnel, in reply. said, was the action rightly
brought against all the defendants? If not, it was not'
rightly brought against any of them ; but the Jury
would see, when they canre to examine the case fairly,
that there was no pretence for the defence. I: was,
undoubtedly, a very gracious defence! The Directors'
had quarrelled with Mr. John Wilks; they might settle
that quarrel as they thought proper, and the Jury could
form no opinion on the subject, but they should not
transfer the quarrel to their stationer. The plaintiff
supplied the stationery, the defendants made use of it,
and the plaintiff deserves to be paid; and why should
he not ?

The ArronNay•Gansaat. then wanted to reduce the
verdict, contending, that the defendants were not liable
for what was ordered at the first meeting, but, that was
not the case, for the defendants adopted what was done
at that fira meeting. But the main defence was made
for Sir John Peering and Mr. Barber: for the latter
Gentleman, because he was not a Director until August,
and for Sir John Perring, because, though recoils-
melded to be a Director, he had sever acted. If there
were any two persons for wham it would be more un-
gracious to make such a defence, it would be those
very two who were the bankers of the concern. All
the persons who made payments on the 16th of April
became partners in respect of their interests, and if they
incurred the terrible responsibility of having goods to
the amount of 501. they must pay for them.
Lord Tarittranatr—lhe defendants wet e allegod arid
were proved at some period to be partners iu the com-
pany. If they had held themselves forth as partners,
or if the goods had been supplied under their authority,
they were liable. It was an action of contract, which
differed from an action of wrong, for if the plaintiff
failed in the sbewing that any vile of the deem:ants-
was liable, none a them were liable, and he could not
recover; but if he had shewn that all were liable for
any part of the sum, he was to recover for that part.
It appeared that there were other partners not iccluded
in the action, but the defendants could only take ad.'
vantage of that by pleading in abatement, which they
had not done. They were therefore to see whether
the whole of the de.endants u ere liable for any one
part? Every defendant paid the deposits as early as
the 16th of April. Mr. Barber was not then named
•s a director, but he was appointed one by the settle.
tent deed, which both he and Mr. Sullivan executed in
the month of August. For what was ordered before
the 16th April, his Lordship was of opinion iliac the
defendants were not liable; for a partner could riot be
compelled to pay debts incurred before be befainit.
partner. It had been contended that the paiinent
made by Mi. Barbet on the 16th of Aka frOuld
not make him liable. If a person paid on the leth
April upon his sharer and after that time executed is
deed by which he became a partner, he, by that execu-
tion, chewed that he intended to become a paitner.—
Taking into consideration the payment on the 16th of

April, and the execution on the2d of August, his Lord-
ship wasof opinion that Barber and Sullivan did become
partners on the 16th of April. It was the* said that the
order given by Wood was unauthorised, another person
having been appointed stationer, and havinesupplied
some articles; but it appeared that the plaintiff sent in
his bill, and no objection was made to the account for
the goods'. which were all used- by the Company.—
Another point urged was, that it was Mr. Wilkes action,
and as he, being a.partner. could not sue, neither could
the pliintiff, but because Wilk: said, 4, Don't sue me,
sue the others ; and if you fail, I will pay the costs,"
did it follow that the plaintiff: was to lose his right of
looking to all the defendants? and did Wilks's indem-
nification destroy the legal obligation to pay which the
defendants were under ? Certainly not. Therefore the
plaintiff was entitled to recover for all the goods ordered
since the 16th of April, and actually delivered.
Verdict accordingly for the plaintiff—damages, 351
13t.9c1.

AGATIIIT LATON.
This wit an action for goods sold and delivered.

Mr. GURNEY said the plaintiff was a linen draper at
Bishop's Stottford: The action was for 511. for goods
supplied to M. Laton, the wife of the defendant. He'
understood that the defendant meant to contend that he'
and his wife jived sep.irate, and therefore that he was
not liable; but as the goods were necessaries, and fit
for the station of life of Mrs. Laton, who had no sepa•
ration deed, the defence wonld notsavail. The defendant

said he allowed his wife IQOI. a year until her father's
death; but this was entirely unknown to the plaintiff.
Mrs. Laton was on a visit to a friend at Puck.etidge,
and she went with that friend to order the goods at the
shop of the plaintiff, who had not theleast suspicion that
she was living apart from her husband; the best proof'
of which was, that he actually sent the goods to the
house of the defendant, .oho lived in the same village
with his wife, and not very far apart from her. If he
bai not meant to pay for the goods, he ought to have
sent them back ; but instead of that it: s:nt them to
Mrs. Laton, and when the plaintiff's traveller railed
for payment, he was told that the defendant's wife"Tived
separate from the defendant, who did not consiirr him-
self liable:

JUshua White, shopkeerer to the plaintiff, tryoveil
Mrs. Lawn came with thy. PeaChmaa, of Puckekidge,
to his master's shop in 1824. and bought some goods,
and left an order for others. Witoms served her. Mrs.
'Lawn came in a carriage, in .wbafh she took away the
goods. Witottiecarried the goods ordered to the house
of the delendadt, at liraffam, leaving a bill of parcels
enclosed in it.

Cross-esamined by the ATTORNEYGENERAL—Neither
he nor his master knew that Mrs. Laton was a married
woman. He took the good's by mistake w the defend-
ant's house. The set vant told hint that Mrs. Laton livid
there. The parcel was addressed to her. He did not
then know that there was a Mks. Laton. Witness dis-
covered the mistake on the delitery of a second parcel,
which he brought back.
William Sentence Itomsey called at the defendant's
house on the 30:h of October, to subFcerta the servant,
and saw the defendant, who told witness that he did not
return the goods because the man went away so quick,
but that he sent t' em immediately to Mrs. Laton.
Mrs. Ann Prior. ►tated, that the defendant was a gen-
tleman living on his fortune. Witness visited Mrs.
Laton, who had beets at Braffarn three or four years,
and was visited by the other families in the neighbour-
hood. Witness knew that Mrs. Laton was at the time in
want of the goods. Mrs. Park man was too ill to attend.
Mr. Holtaway,an attorney, understood from the de-
fendant's father, who had been dead three years, that he
had allowed Mr•. Laton 1201. a year upon her separa-
tion, but had after" ards withdrawn the allowances
Cross•caamiued—He did not know this on his bwn
know ; the defendant's lather was a Colonel in the
army, and defendant had himself been in the army. -
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the defendant
and Isis wife had been separated some years. The de-
fendant's father used to allow his son about 2201. a
year, but upon his separation from his wife, he allowed
the wife an annual sum of 1201. which was regularly
paid to her until he understood that she had become
entitled by the death of her father to the interest of
40,000 srcca rupees, being 5,0001. which, at the Ea.t
India rate of interest, produced an annual income of
304. He then discontinued the_ allowance of 1201.
a year, and Mrs. Lawn had ever since endeavoured to
make her husband liable for her debts.

Witnesses were called who proved that Mrs. Laton
had become by her father's death entitled to the income
stated, and that the allowance of 1201. a year was dis-
continued only altar that had become known. It was
also proved that the defendant depended chiefly upon
his mother, who had an income of about 6001. a year.
Mr. GURNEY replied.
Lord Tarirkanett said, it appeared that the plaintiff
did not know whether the lady was married or not ;he
therefore could not have supplied the goods on the
credit of the husband. It oat presumed that when
husband mid wife lived together, that goods fmnish:ed
to the wile were supplied nn the credit of the husband;
bot where they live apart, it %% as incumbent on the party
who supplied the wile with goods upon credit to thew
that she was living separate withoet maintenance. All
that they knew of thlfse parties was, that they were living
separate by mutual content. That which was reason-
able was law. An allowance had been made to the
laiy, but it turned one upon the death of her Lather that
she became entitled to a separate income. This did
not for some time come to the knowledge of the defen-
dant's father, but, when it did, he withdrew the allow.
al ce. Was that unreasonable? Under these circum-
stances, the Jury were to give their opinion, whether
it was reasonable that the liesband_shoold be held re-
ponsible ?
In answer to a question from one of the Jury,'
His LORDSHIP ardded—,. If a tradesman gives credit
to a perscn who comes to his shop, he must be consi-
dered as giving trust at his peril."
The Jury immediately found for the defendant.
Lord TENTTRDEN—" Gentlemen, I think the verdict
quite right."