Star.
London, England, 1826-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 4.

SIR JOHN PERRINO AND OTHERS V. DUNSTAN.
This was an action on a promissory note, under the
following circumstances:—During the rage for Com-
pinies, a number of persons assembled and formed a
Company called the " Imperial Distillery Company."
The business of this Company was to be conducted by
eight directors, and the defendant was one of these
directors. During the existence of the Company they
found it necessary to borrow 1,0001. The directors
applied to Sir John Perring and Co. who accommodated
Ithem with that sum ; it being agreed that it should be
repaid in a note at six months. Being afterwards de-
sirous of cancelling this note and making a new arrange-
ment, they again applied to the plaintiffs, who agreed
to the terms proposed by the directors, part of which
was that they (the directors) should give a fresh note
tor 1,0001. payable in three months. This note was
drawn in nearly the following form ;•••..41 Three months
after date we jointly promise to pay," kc. It was signed
by all the directors; but previous to its coming into
the hands of the plaintiffs, the secretary to the Com-
pany bad interlined it with these words—" and seve-
rally," which made it read as follows ;••Il Three months
after date, we jointly and severally promise to pay,"
The secretary, on being placed in the box to prove
the signatures of the directors, stated that the defendant
was not aware of the alteration which had been made,
not being present at the time ; but it had been made by
consent of all the other directors.
The LORD CHM/ Juarica considered this fact suffi-
cient for him to nonsuit the plaintiffs, as the alteration
which had been made in the note had rendered the de-
fendant liable for the whole. The defendant, who had
from the first offered to pay his share of the note, very
handsomely declined to take advantage of the objection
which had arisen on the alteration of the note, and con-
sented to a verdict of 1251.

UK JOHN PENNING AND OTHERS V. HOWL
This was an action under exactly similar circumstances
to the former, the defendant in this case being another
of the directors of the" Imperial Distillery Company."
The same objections were taken as in the former, but
not succeeding, another was started, to shew that the
plaintiffs were themselves shareholders in the Company
at the time it existed, and that they could not now sue
against a partnership in which they themselves were
interested.

The LORD CHIP.II JUSTICE said, he should hold them
liable as partners. It was of the utmost importance to
the Public that they should be better informed on this

subject than they at present appeared to be. He was
decidedly of opinion that when pet sons once entered
into these Companies, they must remain there with ell
their liabilities until they were fairly released. It had
been too frequently the case that great names had been
associated with these Companies, which had unfortu-
nately drawn the unthinking part of the Public to em-
bark in schemes countenanced by men of such high
repute. These men bad withdrawn themselves, and left
insolvent persons to meet liabilities which had been
rashly incurred. He considered it high time the Public
should know that this could not be done. He should
now direct the plaintiffs to be =insulted; but at the
same time would give them an opportunity of taking
the opinion of the Court upon the subject, by allowing
them to move that the nonsuit might be set aside.—
The plaintiffs were accordingly nonsuited.
A Common Jury was called in the course of the
morning, to take a verdict by consent, when one of the
Jurors who was called was in such a state of intoxica-
tion, that it was with difficulty he could reel up the
steps into the box. His drunkenness being apparent to
every one in Court, he was instantly ordered out; this
order he proceeded with some difficulty to pnt in execu-
tion, and after a few vain attempts finally succeeded in
making a safe descent, which he bad no sooner done,
than the officers concluded the order which had been
given, by handing him out of the Court altogether.