Page images



merely to discover defects in it; and that when so knives being arranged diagonally came into action be void for a similar reason, and that the table. read, the specification must be taken to refer to that successively; and that as one finished its work before machine was constructed on that principle; 3rdly, peculiar adaptation of the knives to the old inven. another began, there was no compression of the slices that the specification is not sufficient, for that it did tion, which was neu, as appeared by the evidence at of turnips, and therefore no clogging. Some witnesses not sufficiently describe the old and the new, nor the trial. If a specification sufficiently explains the also stated, that there was, before the patented ma- describe the principle of the patent, nor state the whole principle of the inrention claimed by the chine, a machine described as a table cutter, which angle at which the knives are to be placed. The patentee, it is not necessary to set forth the results had vertical and horizontal cutters, which severally two latter objections were those mainly in. of that principle.

struck the turnips at the same time, but slightly be- sisted upon before us, and properly so; because This case came before the Court of Exchequer hind each other, so that the pieces of turnips were there can be no doubt that the principle of the Chamber in the shape of a bill of exceptions to the jammed together in passing through the machine. The plaintiff's invention, which is a machine to cut by direction of the learned judge (Patteson) at the trial witnesses likewise said that the plaintiff's invention steps, is different from that of Snowdon's machine in of this case, which was an action for the infringement was of great practical utility. It was admitted that which the knives cut simultaneously, and from that of a patent for the invention of a certain improve the defendant made and sold machines similar to those of the table cutter, which, though it operated partly ment in a machine for cutting Swedish and other of the plaintiff, cutting step by step, and which, as in the same way, is quite a different sort of machine; turnips, mangold-wurzel, and other roots used as one of the witnesses said, acted on the same prin- and we are of opinion that neither of the other obfood for sheep, horned cattle, and other animals. To ciple. It was contended at the trial, on behalf of the jections are well founded. If we look, as we ought to the declaration, which was in the usual form, there defendant below (the plaintiff in error), that the plain- look, at the whole specification in a fair and candid spirit, were several pleas-1st, not guilty; 2nd, that the tiff below was not, upon the evidence, entitled to re- with a desire to be instructed by it, and not merely plaintiff was not the true inventor; 3rd, that the cover, because the principle of his invention was not to discover defects in it, then if the specification, which invention was not new; 4th, that the plaintiff had new, but was the same as that of Snowdon's ma- explains what the patentee himself claims, had really not sufficiently described the nature of his said inven- chine. It was also contended, that the specification comprised every sort of cutting machine, consisting tion ; 5th, that the alleged invention was not an im- was not sufficiently precise in its terms, and that it of a drum with knives, no doubt it would have been provement; and, lastly, a plea which set out the must be taken to include every rotary cutter, con- void ; for we think the machine of Snowdon was despecification; and then stated that, though part of sisting of a drum furnished with knives, or, at all cidedly of that description, and was unquestionably the alleged invention was new, a part of it was old, events, every species of knives arranged in he drum an old invention. So, if the specification had claimed and that the specification did not sufficiently describe on what is called the diagonal principle, and that on all sorts of machines for cutting diagonally, not that part. The plaintiff denied the last plea, and, either construction the invention was open to the ob- simultaneously, it would also have been void; but by the general replication de injuria, joined issue jection already stated, that, viz. of being old. It was we think this is not the meaning of the specification, on or traversed the others. The specification, as further argued, that the specification was too vague, which does not claim every kind of cutter with a set out in the declaration, was in substance as follows: and did not sufficiently distinguish the old from the drum, or every species of diagonal cutter ; but only The invention was in the first place described as “my new parts of the invention, nor set forth with dis. a particular species of drum cutter in which the invention of certain improvements on machines for tinctness the principle of the patent claimed. The knives are placed diagonally. The evidence was cutting Swedish and other turnips, mangold-wurzel, nature of these objections will be better understood that this species of cutting

If and other roots used as food for sheep, horned cattle, by a reference to the judgment of the Court as given Snowdon's machine had been first used subse. and other animals." The specification then pro- below.

quently to the date of the patent, we think that ceeded to refer to the accompanying plan of a rotary Hill, Q.C. for the plaintiff in error.—The plaintiff would have been no infringement of it; nor would the cutter as shewn in operation; this rotary cutter being in error is willing to admit that his machine would be table-cutter have been an infringement. The next formed as a drum mounted upon an axle, certain parts an infringement of the defendant's patent if that pa- objection is as to the sufficiency of the specification, of its periphery having different radii, in order tent is valid, but he denies its validity. The patent and, admitting that the plaintiff's is an invention of a to produce the recesses into which the roots of is for an improvement in a machine for cutting tur- particular species of a drum-cutter, it is argued that the turnips were to descend. It then proceeded to nips, &c. used as food for sheep and cattle, and it is insufficient, because it does not properly describe refer to the plates, and described the operation of the consists in the peculiar construction of a rotary the principle of the patent, nor state the angle at machine in these words : “ The rotary cutter thus cutter, and in the adaptation of that cutter to the which the knives ought to be placed; but it appears constructed would then appear as shewn in perspec- machine for cutting turnips. The object of this im- to all of us that it is sufficiently clear, and that the tive at figure 6, and in revolving upon its axle would provement is to prevent the necessity of squeezing knives are to be so placed as that one shall finish its bring the knives progressively into operation one after the turnips and clogging the machine; and it is work before the other commences, which is the whole another, their upper cutting edges being all coincident worked by less power than the old machine, inasmuch principle of the machine, and that it was not neces. in the same cylindrical curve, and their radial edges as the knives come into operation successively. The sary to state what the result of that principle did conrevolving in parallel circles at right angles to the axis patent is void, because the specification is too large sist in, viz. the non-compression of the strips of turof the drum." Then it went on to say, that in this for the invention. The specification applies to the nips, the prevention of clogging, and the smallest way " the knives will be brought successively into rotary cutter, which is a cylinder or drum, armed expenditure of moving power. As to the angle at operation, and so cut the roots into strips or narrow with knives; but this was not the invention of which the knives ought to be placed, the specification pieces, which pieces or strips will pass through the Gardner, the patentee, for he was not the first who itself does not state it, nor could it do so, for there is apertures behind the knives into the interior of the applied the drum armed with knives to the purpose no certain angle. It must depend on two thingsdrum, and will from thence fall through the shoot stated in the patent. The specification is not con- the width of the strips to which it may be convenient below on to the floor, or into any vessel provided be- fined, as it ought to have been, to the mode by which to the person who uses the machine to cut the tur. peath to receive them. By the construction of the the knives have been adapted to the object in view. nips, and the length of the vertical knives used. And knife shewn and the mode of attaching it to the drum, Another objection to this patent is, that the patentee when the specification is considered in conjunction I am enabled to replace any one of the knives acci- claims as his invention the placing of the knives with the evidence, a competent person would have dentally broken. But I sometimes construct the diagonally; whereas he was not the inventor of the no difficulty in constructing according to it a proper knives by bending plates of steel in the form shewn diagonal principle, but only of the particular mode in machine ; nor have we any difficulty in deciding that in perspective at figure 7, the cutting edges being which that principle has been applied to this machine; the principle of the defendant's machine is the same placed in the same relative positions as before de- and it is a well-known rule, that a patentee must not as the plaintiff's, of wbich it is consequently an inscribed. When the plates are affixed to the cast-iron leave the subject-matter of his patent in doubt, but fringement. The learned judge's direction is therepart of the drum, the curved part of the plates must clearly ascertain and describe the nature of his fore right, and the judgment of the Court of Queen's forms that portion of the periphery of the invention. (Hindmarch on Patents, 183, 184–188, Bench must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. drum marked b. in the former figure. I wish it to and cases there cited; Bovill v. Mocre, 2 Marshall, be understood that I do not intend to confine myself 211; S. C. Davison's Patent Cases, 354; Harmar v.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. to any precise number of cutters or knives to be Playne, 11 East, 101.) The objections to this patent

Saturday, June 13. affixed to a rotary drum, nor do I at all times employ are, then, twofold; 1st, that the patentee claims too

ERROR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH. two sets of cutters, as shewn in the figures referred much; 2ndly, that he does not sufficiently point out will be reported at the earliest practicable period :

The Court gave judgment in the following cases, which to, and though I have described the knives as placed what he does claim.

Dimes v. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY. in two series on opposite sides of the middle plates Watson, Q.C. for the defendant in error.-The an.

Judgment reversed. of the drum, yet I do not coafine myself to that ar- swer to the objections which have been raised to the BYNER U. THE QCEEN.

Judgment affirmed. rangement, as I sometimes place the knives in a validity of this patent is very short. The defendant THE YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY Cox. diagonal range along the drum from end to end, in error claims as his invention the arranging the

PANY v. TUE QUEEN, on the prosecution of Sir William which would be illustrated by cutting the drum into knives diagonally in the drum, so that they may cut

Milner and Others.

Judgment rerersed. KEIR V. LEEMAN.

Judgment afhrmed. two parallel portions at right angles to its axis in the successively-he claims a particular species of rotary

After delivering the above judgments, the case of Gossett dotted line shewn in figure 2. Lastly, I wish it to cutter on the diagonal principle. He referred to v. Howard was called on, and the arguments of the Attor be understood that I claim the adaptation of the par. Minter v. Wells, Webster's Patent Cases, 127; Car. ney-General, who appeared for the plaintiff in Error, were ticular form of knife with two cutting edges, shewn penter v. Smith, Webster's Patent Cases, 530 ; Mac

not concluded at the rising of the Court. in the drawing, and also the placing of those knives farland v. Price, Webster's Patent Cases, 75.

Monday, June 15. in diagonal ranges in the manner described, or any Hill, in reply, referred to Macfarland v. Price.

ERROR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH. other suitable construction of koives, the faces of the June 15.--PARKE, B. now proceeded to deliver

TINDAL, C.J., delivered the judgment of the Court in the radial cutting edges of which shall stand parallel to the judgment of the Court.

case of Partridge v. The Governor and Company of the

His lordship first Bank of England, reversing the judgment of the Court bethe ends of the drum, and to each other.” The adverted to the evidence, and to the pleadings on low, as to the 1st and 2nd counts in the declaration, and specification then referred to another example of the the record, of which an abstract has been given affirming that judgment as to the last count. adaptation of a series of straight knives arranged in above, and then proceeded thus :- The counsel WEDLAKE V. GARDNER.-Judgment in this case was conjunction with the diagonal cutting edges. On for the defendant 'made eight objections, which likewise delivered by Parke, B. "The report will be found the trial, several witnesses were examined, some of are fully set out in the bill of exceptions, and in- suprà.. whom gave evidence that no machine like the plaio- sisted that on all or some of those the learned judge cluded in the case of Gossett v. Howard, and Petersdoff, for

The arguments of the Attorney-General were then contiff's had been seen before,-though there were ought to have directed the jury to find that the plain the defendant in error, was part heard. No day was machines, and particularly a machine invented by tiff was not entitled to recover. He refusing to do named for the further hearing of this case at the rising of the one Snowdon, which cut by means of knives arranged so, and having directed the jury to the contrary, an Court; it will, therefore, stand over, we presume, till the

drum, but that the knives were so placed in the exception is taken to his direction. The objections sitting of the Court after Michaelmas Term ensuing. machine as to make their cutting at the same taken are in substance three: first, that the principle

Tuesday, June 16. moment, one knife cutting horizontally, or in a of the plaintiff's invention was not new, and was the


CLIFT v. SCHWABE. cylindrical direction as the drum went round, whilst same as that of Snowdon's machine ; secondly, that

Judgment rerersed. the others were vertical or parallel to the sides of the specification was not very clear, but must be infringement of a patent, which had been tried before Tin

M'ALPINE V. MANGNALL.-This was an action for the the drum, and the effect was said to be that the taken to describe the subject-matter of the patent as dal, C. J., to whose direction to the jury the plaintiff in machine required great force to be used in the being the rotary cutter, consisting of a drum fur- error took exception. The patent was entitled as being for moving power, and that the strips of turnips nished with knives, and that the cutter formed of improvements in machinery for stretching, drying, and were compressed in passing in the intervals the drum and the knives was old, and consequently to clear out the starch from between the meshes of such between the knives, so as to lead to the clogging of the invention being in part not new, the patent was woven fabrics or muslins, whilst undergoing the process the machine. The evidence also was, that the plain- void ; and further, that if the specification included of stretching, drying, and finishing, by means of me tif's machine worked with less power, because the every species of cutting by knives diagonally, it would I chinery, wbich gave to the frame on which the muslin


was stretched a diagonal motion ; this motion had, felonious, must be animo furandi and lucri causa. or sendee ; it does not in faet alter the property ; previously to the invention of the patentee (the plaintiff (4 Blacks. Com. 229; 2 East's P. C. c. 16, s. 2; and for the Postmaster-General is only the locum tenens of motion was communicated to the old invention. The It is not contended that the lucrum, as here used, the Postmaster-General had parted with the property

The last point, that, at all events, tent was consequently for the machinery by which this per. Grose, J. in R. v. Hammond, 2 Leach, 1089.) the real owner. exception to the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice was, means only pecuniary gain; it is satisfied by proof of and not merely with the possession of the letter, and that his lordship ought to have directed the jury that the any advantage which may be measured by a pecuniary that, therefore, the conduct of the prisoner was a specification was not by its terms confined to that portion of amount; and its meaning is well illustrated by the false pretence, and not a larceny, has received no an. the entire machine which was new, and that it was bad for not sentence in Terence-“Quid mihi lucri est te fallere?” swer.

Cur, adr. rult. distinguishing the new from the old. were taken in the course of the argument, which it would be Some decisions have certainly carried the meaning of The learned judges afterwards assembled to conuseless to report at length, because the Court gave judgment that word very far ; as in the case of a servant steal- sider the case, and held that the taking and destroyupon the form of the exceptions as disclosed upon the re- ing his master's corn to give to his master's horses ; | ing of the letter, under the circumstances stated, cord. They thought that it did not sufficiently appear what but that is an extent which the criminal law commis. amounted to larceny; and that, therefore, the conthe direction of the learned judge really was, and that no sioners have designated as ridiculous. R. v. Cabbage viction was right.

Conriction sustained. misdirection being set forth in the special case on which the (Russ. & Ry. 292) does not support the marginal Court was called upon to give judgment, the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed. Webster for the plaintiff note, which states that it is not necessary that the in Error Sir T. Wilde for the defendant in Error.

taking should be lucri causâ; for in that case there Bankrupt and Insolvent Courts.
Judgment affirmed. was the greatest advantage to one of the prisoners.
Thursday, June 18.

In R. v. Morfit (Russ. & Ry. 307), R. v. Handley
The Court this day delivered judgment in the case of Re Jacklin (1 New S. C. 208, 13 L. J. N. S. M. Ć.

COMMISSIONERS' COURTS. (Car. & M. 547), R. v. Gruncell (9 Car. & P. 365), Woodroffe v. Doe dem. Daniel, which will be reported in a very early number of the Law Times. The judgment of the 139), R. v. Richards (1 Car. & K. 522), R. v. Bligh.

Wednesday, June 24. Court of Exchequer was atfirmed as to one moiety of the ton (Dickenson's Q. S. 202, 4th edit.), although an (Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) estate for which the ejectment had been brought, and as to extended meaning was given to the words lucri causa,

Re WM. HURNELL. the other moiety was reversed. still it was held to be a necessary ingredient in the

Assignments by traders.
Tuomas v. HUDSON.-Watson, Q.C. for the defendant in offence. Now here there was no gain or advantage A trader who assigns his property after service of writ
Error. Martin, Q.C. in reply.

Cur. adr. rult.
Friday, June 19.
to the prisoner by intercepting and destroying the

will be deemed to have been guilty of fraudulent preLEDSAM v. RUSSELL.-Sir F. Kelly for the plaintiff in letter; it was a letter which she herself had put in ference as against the creditor for whose debt such Error. M. Smith, for the defendant in Error.

motion; and her obtaining a situation did not depend action was brought. It is his duty to file a declaraCur, ado, tult. upon it. It would have been a different thing if she had tion of insolvency.

intercepted an answer, which she believed to be unsa- The bankrupt had applied in August last for his

tisfactory. Here, she goes, as it were, to take her own certificate, but was opposed by Mr. Pain, on behalf CROWN CASES RESERVED.

letter; for Mrs. Dangerfield was only the agent of of the creditors, on the ground that, after having been

the prisoner for the purpose of making inquiries as to served with writs for various debts, he had assigned Saturday, April 25.

her character. Suppose she had written the letter some property to his own foreman, and permitted his (Before all the Judges except ALDERSON, B., COLE- herself, the stopping it might

be a fraud upon the brother-in-law to take in execution all his other proRIDGE, J., MAULE, J., & WIGHTMAN, J.) post-office, but would it be a larceny? R. v. God. perty. Judgment was deferred, but at the urgent Reg. v. ELIZABETH JONES.

frey (8 Car. & P. 563) is an authority for saying that request of the bankrupt it was this day given. Larceny of a post letter.-Intercepting a post letter, it would not. Although the post-office considers His Honour went very minutely into the facts of and burning it.

all letters in the course of transmission through the case, stating that he should at all events have A servant about to quit the service of her mistress the post the property of the Postmaster-General, postponed the certificate for three years, because the

applied to another person for a situation, and was still the prisoner might well have considered this letter bankrupt, after having been served with writs at the promised an engagement if the answer of her former as her own ; and if so, she was not guilty of a larceny; suit of creditors, had assigned his property in Lendenmistress to a letter inquiring as to her character and this quite independently of the strict question of hall-street to his own foreman, and bad permitted his should be satisfactory. That letter was written and the law, whether the property of a letter is in the brother-in-law to take in execution all his property in posted; but the servant, having been in the mean sender or sendee. Lastly, this was a false pretence, Windmill.street, and finally refused the certificate time dismissed by her former mistress, and told that and not a larceny, because by the delivery of the altogether, on the ground that the bankrupt had conshe would not give her a character, went to the post. | letter to the prisoner the property was parted with. cealed about 1501. the proceeds of bis furniture. His office, and applied for her mistress's letters, which Bros, for the Crown.-It is admitted that this of Honour added - I have often stated, and I shall conwere given to her. She then took from the rest the fence must contain all the ingredients of larceny at tinue to repeat it, until the public mind becomes letter containing the inquiry as to her character, and common law, and here all that is necessary ap- familiar with the principle, that I shall always conburnt it. The rest she sent to her mistress. Upon pears. There can be no question as to the property, sider the date of the first writ served upon a person an indictment for stealing a post letter, held that because the Act of Parliament (sec. 40) expressly who afterwards becomes a bankrupt, without having she was properly convicted.

provides that the property may be laid in the Post- paid the creditor who sued him, as the very latest The prisoner was indicted before the Lord Chief master-General; and the case, therefore, is, that the period at which he must be deemed to have known Baron, at the last assizes for the county of Hereford, prisoner has taken the chattel of another by means of that bankruptcy was approacbing ; and I shall always for stealing a post letter, and was convicted upon her a fraud ; which, if done animo furandi, is larceny. consider every act done, or omitted to be done by him own confession, subject to the opinion of the judges (Pollock, C. B.-Suppose the prisoner had seen a after that date, tending directly or indirectly to the upon the following case:

letter lying on a table, and had applied a lighted paper enabling of one or more of his creditors to get the The prisoner, Elizabeth Jones, pleaded guilty to to it, would it bave been larceny?] There would have bulk of his property, to the prejudice of the general an indictment under 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 28, for stealing, been no asportation then. (POLLOCK, C. B.-Then body, as a serious act of commercial delinquency, to at Ross, from an officer of the post-office, a post if burning it would not be a larceny, is the taking of it be punished by a postponement of the certificate, letter, the property of her Majesty's Postmaster for the purpose of burning it a larceny?] The ques- according to the circumstances of the case. It often General.

tion is, whether it is taken animo furandi; and whe- happens that where property has been snatched from The prisoner had been cook in the employ of Mrs. ther a person can be said to convert a chattel to his the general body of creditors by a seizure under exeGarbett, of Upton Bishop, whose service she was own use by burning it, as he certainly may in some eution, at the instance of one creditor, the bankrupt about to leave, having herself given notice to do so,

The main argument on the other side is, that attempts to excuse himself on the ground that he and was in treaty with a Mrs. Dangerfield, of Chel- there is no evidence that the taking was lucri causâ ; could not prevent the seizure. I answer, that a tenham, for a similar situation. Mrs. Dangerfield but those words are not to be found in the original trader can prevent such preference, by filing a decla. had consented to employ her, if a satisfactory answer definition of larceny. (3 Inst. 107, citing the Mirror; ration of insolvency, and it is his duty to do so. If from Mrs. Garbett should be returned to a letter to Bracton, Lib. iii.c. 32, p. 150; 1 Hale, 503; 1 Hawk. be chooses not to perform that duty, he must be be written for the purpose of making inquiries re- P.C. c. 33.) They are first introduced into the de- punisbed. speeting her character; this letter, the subject of the finition of larceny by Blackstone (4 Com. 229), who present indictment, was written by Mrs. Dangerfield, borrows them from the civil law ; but at all events

Nisi Prius. directed to Mrs. Garbett, and posted at Cheltenham, there is no authority for saying that the word lucrum was from thence duly forwarded to the post-office at means an advantage which can be measured by a pe

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Ross. cuniary amount. In R. v. Cabbage (Russ. & Ry.

Wednesday, June 17. Mrs. Garbett having found fault with the prisoner 292), the advantage was prevention of evidence by de

(Before Sir F. POLLOCK, C.B.) for allowing the friend of another servant to break stroying a horse, which clearly could not be measured The ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. BAILEY. fast in the kitchen without her leave, discharged her by money. Here the object was to stop an inquiry Excise information-Illicit Distillery -- License - Sale from her service, and told her that a character would into the prisoner's character, the reply to which and use of spirits--Consiruclion of 6 Geo. 4, c. 80, not be given to her. The day after ber dismissal she would bave been prejudicial to ber. R. v. Morfit and 6 Geo. 4, c. 81. went to the post-office at Ross, and there applied to (Russ. & Ry. 307) is also, for the same reason, an A person distilling spirits for use on his own premises the clerk on duty for the letter from Cheltenham, authority in support of this conviction. In R. v.

in the way of his trade, is equally liable to the duties addressed to Mrs. Garbett, stating that she was a Richards (1 Car. & K. 532), Tindal, C. J. left it to and penalties imposed by the excise laws as if he servant in Mrs. Garbett's employ, and that Mrs. the jury to say " whether the prisoner had put an iron distilled for sale. Garbett expected a letter from Cheltenham that axle into a furnace with a felonious intent to convert This was an information at the suit of the Attorneymorning, which she was to take ; but upon being in it to a purpose for his own profit ; for, if he did so, it General against the defendant for penalties under the formed that the one letter by itself could not be was a larceny;" although the iron would go back to Excise Laws. The stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 80, s. 26, en. given, she first took from the office all the letters for the master's in another form ; and the only advan- acts that if any person shall make or manufacture, Mr. and Mrs. Garbett, including that written by tage which the prisoner would get, would be id. for deal in, retail, or sell any goods or commodities Mrs. Dangerfield, and then selected the one which the extra weight drawn out of the furnace, according thereinafter mentioned for the making, or manufacwas the subject of the present indictment, and burnt to the mode adopted of paying for the work. R. v. turing, or dealing in, retailing or selling of such it, but delivered the others to the person who was Godfrey (8 Car. & P. 563) is a very different case: it goods or commodities, a license is required by the Act. in the habit of conveying the letters from the Ross arose out of an election squabble; and all that the Without taking out such license as is in that behalfrepost-office to the inhabitants of Upton Bishop, and learned judge said was, that if a letter were opened quired, he, she, or they shall, for every such offence, rethey reached Mr. and Mrs. Garbett in safety. out of idle curiosity, it would not be a felony. spectively forfeit and lose the respective penalty there

The question for the opinion of the Judges is, whe- Huddleston.—The definition in the Mirror contains upou imposed as thereinafter mentioned, that is to ther the taking and destroying of the letter under the word “egagne," which is equivalent to the “lu- say, “ Every distiller or maker of low wines or spirits, these circumstances amounted to larceny.

crumof the civil law. Lambard, in bis “Eirepar. and every rectifier or compounder of spirits, so ofHuddleston, for the prisoner. This is a conviction cha," gives a similar definition ; 'and all the cases fending respectively, shall respectively forfeit and lose upon an indictment under the 28th section of 7 Wm. which have been cited shew that some advantage to 5001.". The stat. 6 G. 4, c. 80, s. 30, enacts, “ That 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36; and to support it, all the ingre. be gained is one of the ingredients of larceny. Then entry shall be made of the name and abode of the dients of a larceny at common law must appear;

but here there is no evidence of any sort of advantage ; distiller and the place where the premises intended to here there is a total absence of one material ingredient, and as to the property in the letter, the Act only pro be entered is, or shall be situate, and a true declaration viz. the lucri causâ. All the definitions of larceny, vides that it may be laid in the Postmaster-General, given of the vessels and utensils erected and intended impliedly or expressly, shew that the taking, to bel to avoid the difficulty of laying it either in the sender to be used therein." The 39th section then provides


for the power to enter premises, and where any pri- his own account, and so defraud the revenue of the about twelve actions against as many different com. vate or concealed still, back, or other vessel, for mak - duties chargeable on the materials used by him in his mitteemen. ing worts or wash, or for making or distilling low trade, and on which he would pay those duties if he The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said wines and spirits, or any privately made spirits or had bought them. Such a state of things would be that he should leave to the jury the same questions low wines, or any wash or other materials prepariog most dangerous, and the proposition was a most which he had left in the case of Reynell v. Lewisfor distillation, are set up or kept, and to seize the abused one, in my opinion. For this reason it was namely, what was the effect of the defendant baving same, and enacts “That, in case they shall not, within that I am unwilling to listen to any argument on the consented to become a member of the provisional ten days next after such seizure, be claimed by the matter. At the same time I am ready, for I am committee-which was a question entirely for the true and lawful owner thereof, then the said stills, bound to be so if the argument be pressed; but as jury-and then whether that consent authorized any backs, and other vessels, spirits, low wines, wash, I am willing to reserve the point for solemn dis- other person, the other members of the committee, and other material for distillation, shall be absolutely cussion by the Court next Term, I think any argument the solicitors, or the secretary, to pledge the name of forfeited, and the premises of any such private or now would be wasted, as I shall hold as I have the defendant for the payment of certain reasonable concealed still, back, or other vessel, or the person expressed myself, and so direct the jury on the state and necessary expenses; and if so, then whether, in in whose custody the same shall be found, whether of the law.

consequence of the appearance of certain names in such seizure be claimed or not, shall forfeit and lose The learned Chief Baron then directed the jury in the list of the committee, the plaintiff had been in. for every place in which such private still, back, or consonance with this opinion so expressed, and they duced to take them as security for payment, and other vessel sball be so found, and also for every such found a verdict for the Crown.

thereupon to furnish the outlay the reimbursement of still, back, and vessel found therein, the sum of

which he now sought. This case presented topics for 2001." The information contained counts applicable

strong remarks, which remarks it was not his duty to to these provisions, and in support thereof,

Thursday, June 28.

withbold. This was one of those companies pretend. Sir F. Kelly, S.G. (Wilde with him), proved that (Before POLLOCK, C. B. and a Special Jury.) ing to be a railway company which had never had any op the 16th of July last certain excise officers re


existence at all, and it appeared to him that the paired to the premises of the defendant, situate in Liabilities of Provisional Committees.- Advertising practice of getting provisional committees together by Globe-road, Mile.end, where he professed to carry on


asking certain persons to consent to become as it were the occupation of purifier of oils and manufacturer of The question for the jury is, whether the consent to be a few committeemen, to give a colour to the concern, size under the title of “Carter and Sims," and there come a member of the committee was merely intended was a system which was open to very strong observa. discovered various vessels and utensils, all of which to express approral of the project, or was it intended tions. Now, he could not in any way understand were used in the process of distillation, while, in va- to express, not only approval of the line, but willing- how gentlemen could consent to become members of rious other vessels and vats, was a quantity of spirits ness to incur the preliminary expenses? If the jury a provisional or any other committee under an inin various stages of manufacture. One of the men, be of opinion that the purpose, in putting down the demnity from the persons who were, in truth, getting engaged by the defendant as his foreman, proved that name, was only to express approval, and not to share it up for the purpose of holding them out to the world spirits of nitre and ammonia had been continually the expenses, the person who did so with the former as bona fide committeemen, when, at the same time, manufactured on the premises, and that the plain view is not liable for the payment of them.

they were neither more nor less than, by that act, the spirit had also been made there, some of which had | The rule laid down by Parke, B. in Low v. Wilson, as mere instruments of the very solicitors by whose perbeen supplied in large quantities to the defendant's to the non-liability of members of the Provisional suasion they had been induced to join the committee. customers.

Committee, where there is a Managing Committee, When a number of persons were got together in these At the close of the case for the Crown, which is correct.

companies under the indemnity of the solicitors, he abundantly established the connection of the defendant Knowles and Willes, for the plaintiff; and Crowder must confess that it appeared to him to be a delusion, with the premises and vessels in question, either as and Rawlinson, for the defendant.

not only upon the public and the world at large, but part or sole owner,

This was an action to recover the sum of 5601. upon all other parties who might become connected Martin, Q.c. (with whom were Dowdeswell and brought by the plaintiff, an advertising agent, against with them, or with a company upon other and difDuncan), on behalf of the defendant, submitted that the defendant, a member of the provisional commit- ferent terms. Mr. Downes had said that at the time he was not liable to the penalties sought to be re-tee of the Salisbury and Lymington Junction Railway. he was speaking to the defendant upon the subject of covered in this information. He was prepared to the leading features in this case appeared to be, that the the company be had shewn that gentleman his letter shew to, and hoped to satisfy, the Chief Baron that the company had been projected in the month of Septem- of indemnity. If that were so, it was somewhat odd defendant had not in any degree infringed the statute ber last by a gentleman at the bar of the name of if the defendant had not said that he should have no 6 Geo. 4, c. 80 & 81, for that his distillery was quite H. J. Mellor, who had asked the firm of Weall and objection to become a committeeman upon the same legal. The statutes in which the information was Berkeley to act as solicitors to the company, stating terms. However that had been, the fact in either grounded were meant to apply solely to distillers and that the preliminary expenses would not be more than case could make no difference in so far as the plaintiff makers of low wipes and spirits for sale, and did not 50l. or 601. A prospectus was accordingly prepared, was concerned, if he was not aware of the existence touch those who distilled wines and spirits on their printed, and issued, prior to which some advertise of the indemnity; and that he was not had been own premises for the purpose of making some other ments announcing the company were inserted in the proved by the fact of his having brought an action manufacture in which they dealt. The witnesses for newspapers. Eventually the prospectus was pub- against Downes in the first instance. Now, although the Crown had admitted that the great bulk lished, as in the case of all other railways, in the Downes had received this indemnity, he was liable to of the spirit manufactured at this place was used in morning and evening journals of London, and in some the plaintiff, and then his own remedy upon the the making of sal volatile and sweet spirits of nitre; of the country papers. These insertions were, in the indemnity was against the persons from whom and, on the true construction of these Acts, the de majority of instances, the result of the exertion of the he had received it-pamely, Messrs. Weall and fendant was prepared to shew that he was not liable plaintiff

, and it was for the money paid for them that Berkeley. He must in the end have looked to to these penalties. This was done by many of the he now brought his action. Mr. Mellor, however, it the parties from whom he had received it—the great wholesale chemists, and would be equally liable appeared, had a co-promoter or projector in the per- solicitors of the company:

If advertising in the with the defendant.

son of a Mr. Brown, of Lymington, who was ap- public newspapers were part of the necessary expenSir F. POLLOCK, C. B.- This is a subject which I pointed what is denominated the " Local Agent." diture for hatching the eggs of a railway company so have considered, and on which I have arrived long At first there was not any provisional committee as to give it life, and to make it fit to be brought into ago at a deliberate opinion. It would be waste of published, but afterwards, when a few gentlemen had the world, and then to maintain it in life-who, let time, therefore, to enter upon any argument in sup. consented to act in that capacity, their names were him ask, was to pay the expense of that advertising port of the position taken by the defendant.

put into the papers, and, as the list swelled in num- but the committee ? or, were they merely an ornaMartin hinted that his lordship would allow him to bers, the alteration was made in the advertisements mental part of the concern? The question upon that state the points on which the objection was founded. and prospectus by the addition of the new names. part of the case then was, did the consent to become

Sir F. Kelly, S. G. apprehended that no doubt the defendant, in a conversation with Mr. Downes, a member of the committee merely express the apcould exist on the subject; the 11th section of 6 Geo. expressed himself willing to become a member of the proval of the party so consenting of the project, or 4, c. 80, was decisive; for it is there enacted, that provisional committee ; and, accordingly, in a few did it express not only his approval of the line, but his "every person making or keeping any wash prepared days a prospectus was sent to him, wherein his name willingness to incur the preliminary expenses-not or fit for distilling, or making low wines or spirits, or was printed as a member of that committee. There the expenses which the shareholders' money would any low wipes or ferments, and having in his, her, or was to have been a meeting of the committee on the be applied to when they supplied and poured in the their custody or use any still or stills, shall be deemed 28th of October, but some of that body considering capital for the construction of the railway, but the and taken to be, and is hereby declared to be, a dis. that it would be better to have a preliminary survey preliminary expenses? If, then, the jury were of tiller, liable to the several duties of excise, and to the made prior to a meeting taking place, that event did opinion that the putting his name down as a com. several penalties, fines, and forfeitures imposed by not come to pass until the 7th of November. At this mitteeman had nothing to do with the preliminary this Act relating to distillers."

meeting Colonel Sloane acted as chairman, and the expenses, in that case the person who did that in their Sir F. Pollock, C.B.—There can be no question, report of Mr. Braithwaite upon the survey was read. view had nothing to do with the payment of them; as it appears to me, on the subject. It is impossible The orders for the advertisements were given often- but if they thought that at the time he had done so that I should have been so long engaged in consider- times, if not upon most occasions, in the presence of he had intended to share in the reasonable expenses ing these statutes as an advocate when opposing the several of the committee-men. At the period when of bringing out the company into full operation in Crown, and afterwards when, on two occasions, I held the first advertisements were inserted, the company the character of his initiated partnership as it werethe office of Attorney-General, and recently, since I was composed of Mr. Mellor and his own firm (Weall this preliminary association--they would find a ver. have occupied a seat on this beoch, without arriving in and Berkeley). This was on the 26th of September, dict against him. Now, the jury' must consider what my own mind at a conclusion satisfactory to myself, but in a few days afterwards they received several a man undertook when he became a member of a on this very subject, and I must say that I entertain applications and offers of gentlemen to become mem- provisional committee. As far as a creditor was no doubt whatever that the defendant is within these bers of the provisional committee. To most of the concerned, he had nothing to do with any private Acts, whether he makes spirits to sell, or whether he committee-men his firm gave a letter of indemnity arrangement between the parties; all he had to do makes them to use in some other trade of bis own. I against all liability for expenses, and his firm with was the prospectus. That was bis guide in the In either case he is a distiller, and as such is liable tu conceiving the course necessary by the Act of matter. The case of Low v. Wilson, which had been the control of these statutes. The same thing had Parliament, had registered a copy of the circular con mentioned as decided by his learned brother Parke, been done by an eminent blacking maker, who, being trining the indemnity. This was done on the 16th was different from this, inasmuch as in that case there accustomed to use a quantity of vinegar in bis trade, of October. There was not any letter of indemnity had been a “managing" as well as a "provisional" for which, when he bought it he had to pay a penný sent to the defendant. At the time of Mr. Mellor committee, whilst here the former had not had any duty, thought he would save that duty by making asking his firm to act as solicitors to the company, he existence. As he had perused the report in the vinegar on his own premises. He, however, was suid the preliminary expenses would not be more ordinary channel of public information his opinion obliged to pay the duty on it as a distiller, and I than about 50l., and they accordingly undertook

the had gone along with that expressed from the beach caonot for a moment sanction any misconception in concern, and paid all the preliminary expenses out of by his learned brother. But that case was quite the mind of the public as to the state of the law on the their own pockets, just as they should have done in different from the one now before the Court, because subject, or rather of my opinion on that law. 1 the case of any other professional business. They there there had been a committee of management, entertain not the slightest hesitation in saying that gave an indemnity to Captain Rooke, but did not (as which was not the case bere. Then, as to the next the defendant is liable under these circumstances. It was understood) give one to Mr. Willis. The question for the consideration of the jury; when a man would be a monstrous thing to have it supposed in solicitors to the company

were the attorneys for the was once a member of a provisional committee,

whethis country that a man could set

up as a distiller on plaintiff in the present case. The plaintiff had brought | ther he was sent to by the company once or twenty

penses, and

times, it did not alter bis position in the least. The provisional committee, and the only evidence to go to standing, whose applications have either been passed letter of the 16th October, containing the prospectus, the jury was that the attorney to the company had over or cut down, are requested to accept this reason in which his dame was published as a member of the given the order for the advertisements. This was as the committee's apology." committee, was evidence sufficient, even if there were very slight evidence. If the jury should be of opinion The plaintiff believing from this statement that a no other, of his knowledge that his name had been that the provisional committee had not in any way full and fair allotment of the shares announced in the published. But there was another fact to prove given authority for the insertion of their advertise prospectus had been made, paid his deposit of 821. 10s. that knowledge. On the 28th of October the de- ments, then they must find for the defendants. on the shares allotted to him on the 21st of October fendant was summoned to attend a meeting, when he Assuming, however, that such an authority had been into the bank of Messrs. Currie and Co, the comwrote up to say that he would come up if the money given, it became then a question whether the defend, pany's bankers, and subsequently, on the 4th of Nowas sent down to him to pay his expenses. The jury ants had both been members of the provisional vember, executed the parliamentary contract and submust consider whether the plaintiff would have been committee either for a part or for the whole of the scribers' agreement, and received scrip signed by two likely to have laid out upwards of 5001. in a matter time, between the 9th and the 25th of September, and directors, the defendant and a Mr. Spicer. The of this sort for a speculating attorney, or whether he had held themselves out to the plaintiff as authorising plaintiff heard nothing more of the company's affairs had not taken that step considering that the names the insertion of the advertisements. The jury must till the 15th of December, when a public meeting of of the committee were pledged as the security for his also determine whether both the defendants knew the shareholders was called by advertisement at the repayment. If the plaintiff had at that time known that the committee were incurring expenses on behalf London Tavern, at which Sir Bruce Chichester preone half of what they all were aware of now in re of the projected railway on credit, and also whether the sided as chairman, when it appeared that instead of spect of railway companies, he was inclined to think expenses that had been incurred were reasonable and the whole 120,000 shares having been allotted, conthat he would not have laid out one quarter of the usual. The defendants might have given their consent stituting the capital of the company, only 58,000 sum he claimed. Even taking it for granted that to their liability, not supposing that any large debts shares had been allotted, the committee having thus Mr. Weall, the solicitor, had been surrounded by his would be incurred. There was nothing in the prospectus retained more than half the shares for their own use. indemnified satellites, still it had been proved that the to show that any such would be incurred, and up to the At this time the shares were at a premium, and more plaintiff bad received some of his orders from that 25th of September there did not appear in the minute than 400,000 shares had been applied for. At the gentleman when several of them were present, he re- book a single resolution whereby the committee could meeting, which was rat

er a stormy one, a report and ceiving the orders under the impression that they were be held liable for any debt. If the jury thought that resolutions were agreed to, expressing the deep regiven him in the presence of bona fide committeemen. Cornfoot might well have consented to have bis name gret of the committee that only 58,000 shares had The jury, however, would take all the circumstances used, without reason to know what expenses would be been allotted, which had injured the interests of the into consideration, and find in accordance with the incurred on his credit, they ought to find for the company, and, together with the panic, the conseopinion they might form thereon.

defendants. If they were of opinion in the affirmative, quence had been, that out of the 58,000 shares alVerdict for the defendant. then they would consider whether the expenses in lotted, 35,460 then remained unpaid; and it was

curred bad been reasonable and usual; if so, they resolved, that the committee be authorized to COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. would find for the plaintiff.

issue shares to the extent required for the deposit Monday, June 22.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full in Parliament; if the amount were not subscribed, (Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)

amount sought to be recovered, leave being reserved the whole sum to be returned to the subscribers PARRETT v. BLUNT and CORNFOOT. to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit, on the without reduction. The deposits then paid up were

Liabilities of Provisional gronnd that there was no sufficient evidence to main - 32,3951. out of which sum 4,3441. had been paid for The solicitor to a projected Railway Company having tain the action.

parliamentary expenses, 14,0501. for engineering and ordered the insertion of various advertisements with.

surveying, 8,7911. for law expenses, 2,6891. for adverout the order of the committee, can the members of

Tuesday, June 23.

tising; then there were various miscellaneous ex. the committee be considered to have authorised their

(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)

“ Dr. Blundell not accounted for, names to be pledged to the plaintiff for payment of


5121. 108. ;' that gentleman, the honorary secretary, such advertisements-quare ?

Right of allottees to recover back deposits.

having left his post in debt to the company this In an action against a member of a provisional com. Where a managing commitlee of a railway had ad- amount, and taken with him the papers of the com

mittee for debts incurred on behalf of the projected vertised that all the shares were allotted, when in pany. The total expenses amounted to upwards of Company, it must be proved,

fact they had allotted only a small proportion of 31,9001. leaving a balance in the hands of the company 1st. That defendant had been a member of such com- them, whereby the plaintiff was induced to pay de- of 4921. The reading of this account gave great dis

mittee at the time of the contracting of the debt. posits :--Held, that he might recover back the deposits satisfaction to the meeting, and it appeared on inquiry 2nd. That he had held himself out to the plaintiff as so paid.

that out of sixty-three provisional committeemen who authorising the contraction thereof, and pledged his And eren where defendant had executed the Parlia, had each agreed to take 150 shares, only nineteen had name to the plaintiff for the amount.

mentary deed and subscribers' agreement under such paid upon their shares. The plaintiff on that occa3rd. That defendant knew that the commillee were in. a misstatement of the facts: held, that if the jury sion moved an amendment to the effect, “that the

curring expenses on behalf of the projected railway should be of opinion that he had executed such deed committee had appropriated more than half the shares upon his credit, and that he consented to have his on the same understanding with which he had paid for their own benefit, and had procured the subname so used.

the money, such deed was roid as against the plain- scribers' money on the faith of an advertisement Ath. That the expenses so incurred were reasonable and tiff, and no bar to the action.

stating that a full and fair allotment had been made, usual.

Knowles, Q. C. Byles, Serjt. and Joseph Brown, for and on this ground the whole of the deposits ought The plaintiff was an advertising agent. The action the plaintiff.

to be returned, and the committee ought to bear the was brought to recover from the defendants, as mem. The Solicitor-General, Dowling, Serjt. and Fitz,

expense." Great confusion took place, and the bers of the provisional committee of the Jamaica herbert, for the defendant.

amendment was never put. A committee of manageSouthern, Eastern, and Northern Railway, the sum Knowles opened the case. The plaintiff is a soli- ment of three was appointed, who had since let the of 6411. his. 63. for advertising the scheme from the citor, and the defendant a man of large property, affairs of the company drop through, and they were 9th to the 25th of September, 1845, in the Times and residing in Sussex-gardens, Hyde-park, and chair- unable to go before Parliament, and the scheme other newspapers.

man of the allotment committee of the Direct Lon- might be said to be virtually abandoned. The plainC. Jones, Serjt. and Wordsworth for the plaintiff. don and Exeter Railway,” for which object a com: tiff, therefore, sought to recover the amount of Humfrey and Willes, for the defendant.

pany was formed on the 24th of May last year, and deposit money which he had paid, first, on the ground The company in question was projected during the provisionally registered. The prospectus put forth of failure of consideration on the part of the prorailway mania in August, 1845, the proposed capital by the company stated its object to be to form a di- jectors of the railway; secondly, on the ground of being 1,500,0001. in 30,000 shares of 501. and the rect line of railway from London to Exeter, with an fraud ; and third, because the directors had no right names of both the defendants appeared in the pro- extension line to Falmouth and Penzance; capital to incur expenses at the cost of the sharebolders spectus as provisional committee-men.

3,000,0001. in 120,000 shares of 25).; deposit 11. 7s.6d. until the amount of the stipulated capital was subThe secretary to the proposed company and clerk in per share. Then followed the names of a oumber of scribed. their offices, Mr. Orlando Aguilar, proved that defen noblemen and gentlemen of high respectability as di. The facts having been proved, dant Blunt frequently attended at the office as a rectors and committee of management. The plaintiff The Solicitor - General now submitted that the member of the provisional committee, and occasion. applied for two allotments of shares of thirty each, plaintiff must be nonsuited, on the ground that be ally acted as chairman of the managing committee. and on the 15th of October last an allotment of the had entered into his contract before the advertisement He had also seen the other defendant attend at the shares was made by the allotment committee, of appeared, and before any imputation of fraud could company's offices on more than one occasion, and which the defendant was chairman, and the defendant exist; and, as a partner and shareholder in the comhad shewn him a prospectus, with his name in it as bad allotted to him the shares for which he had ap- pany, he was entitled to a share of the effects, and to a provisional; but he (Cornfoot) plied. Two days afterwards, on the 15th, and sub- any benefit which might accrue to him as the holder had never attended any meetings of the committee. sequently on the 17th of October, advertisements of the scrip. He could not, therefore, be said to have Mr. Preston, the solicitor to the company,

had or

were inserted in the Times newspaper as follows: paid bis money without consideration, the company dered the insertion of the advertisements, and the

"The Direct London and Exeter Railway.-The being still in existence, and he having authorized the newspapers containing them were each day laid on the office-table. In his cross-examination this wit- managing committee of this company hereby give trustees, by the partnership deed which he had signed, ness stated that he and his brother, and two persons that the letters will be issued to the public, if possible,

notice, that the allotment of shares is completed, and to go before Parliament next session for an act. named Campbell and Stock, had started the com- this day.

ERLE, J. said that the plaintiff's contract was, pany, and he and his brother, on the 25th of Sep

that he should have allotted to bim a certain portion

" E. S. BLUNDELL, Honorary Secretary. tember proposed to give up their right as projectors

of 120,000 shares, which would produce a capital of

“ October 13, 1845." of the company, for the sum of 15,0001. and 400

3,000,0001. to form a railway estimated to cost as shares.

There was then a further advertisement, stating that much; that did not mean that he should have allotted The attendance of Blunt, at two meetings of the the committee had no doubt of being able to comply to him a certain portion of 58,0001. and take his provisional committee, was proved from the minute with the standing orders, and announcing when chance of the remaining shares being allotted to ena

The case of book. There was nothing, however, in the minutes a further "call" per share would be demanded. ble the performance of the contract. shewing any express authority from the committee to On the 17th of October the following advertisement Pitchford v. Davis, 5 Meesom and Welsby's Reports, insert the advertisements. was inserted in the Times :

decided it to be a breach of contract on the part of A letter from Cornfoot of the 1st of December, was "The Direct London and Exeter Railway, with directors not to allot the number of shares, and also read in answer to an application from the plain extension to Penzance. The committee of manage- raise the amount of capital proposed. tiff, stating that he had retired from the company ment hereby give notice that they have completed the The Solicitor-General said the plaintiff's contract from the first meeting. There was no minute shews allotment of shares, and that the usual letters are this was not that the allotment should go for nothing, un. ing that Cornfoot had ever attended any of the meet. day issued. In the arduous duty of deciding on the less the whole number of shares were purchased. The ings. The amount of the debt was not disputed. claims, unprecedented, it is believed, in their number contract was merely, that if so many shares were

Mr. Justice ERLE, in summing up, said the first and respectability, the committee bave been obliged to allotted to him, he would pay the deposit on each. question was, aye or no, had the defendants authorised give a preference to applicants locally interested, or ERLE, J. thought the case ought to go to the jury. their names to be pledged to the plaintiff for the pay. likely to bring

to bear for the company a large share There was evidence which ought to be left to them ment of the price of these advertisements ? 'No of legitimate influence. The numerous persons with whether the plaintiff had a right to recover back the express order had been proved, emanating from the undoubted claims on the score of wealth and social money he had paid on a consideration tainted with




fraud. The plaintiff paid the money on a considera

Monday, June 22.

first duly obtained), to make a rate for the building of tion that 60 shares were allotted to him as parcel of Charitable Trusts—" for procuring accounts of receipt and a new church, or for the repairing or for the en120,000 shares; and it seemed to him (Erle, J.) ma

expenditure by all persons administering charitable trusts
in England.”

larging any church or chapel now existing, for terial that every person should understand how many Baths and Washhouses—" for promoting the voluntary esta. the use of the inhabitants of such new

separate shares were allotted, in order that he might know blishment, in boroughs and parishes in England and parish : provided always that no such rate shall how many coadjutors he had in the undertaking, and Wales, of public baths and washhouses."

be valid unless rate-payers occupyiog at the least how far the requisite capital was subscribed.

Wednesday, June 24.

three-fourths of the property rated to the relief of the The Solicitor-General then addressed the jury at New Zealand Loan—"to authorise a loan from the Consoli- poor in such new separate parish concur in the great length for the defendant.--It was unfortunate dated Fund to the New Zealand Company."

making such rate; and no such rate shall be valid that, owing to the misconduct of Dr. Blundell, and

Thursday, June 25.

unless due notice be given of the intention to make to the panic, the undertaking bad not proceeded as Rateable Property, Ireland— to amend the law relating to such

rate for such purpose, by an advertisement pub. was anticipated, supported as it was by many names

the valuation of rateable property in Ireland.”

lished during three successive weeks, in some one of respectability. If the law were as laid down in Newfoundland-" to continue certain

of the provisions of an

Act of the 5 & 6 of Vict. for amending the constitution of pewspaper published in the county or counties wherePitchford v. Daris, it was high time that it should be

the Government of Newfoundland.”

in such parish is situated, signed by the church war. altered ; and if this case were determined on that Exclusive Privilege of Trading Abolition, Ireland—" for the dens, overseers, and ten rate-payers, or where there authority, it would be necessary to resort to the abolition of the exclusive privilege of trading, or of regulat- shall be fewer than teu rate-payers, by rate-payers to Court of the last resort. He should bumbly ask the

ing trades, in cities, towns, or boroughs of Ireland.”

the amount of one-fourth of the rates levied for the learned judge to lay down the law on the subject, in

relief of the poor. order that if he differed from him the point might be

Wednesday, June 24.

Clause 4 declares that church wardens may raise Real Property Conveyance satisfactorily settled. He contended that the adverBankruptcy and Insolvency

money for building new churches by mortgagetisement did no damage to the plaintiff, for the less Sugar Duties.

provided always, that it shall be covenanted that not the number of shares in the market, the more valu.

Thursday, June 25.

less than one-tenth of the sum so borrowed shall be able they would be, and if he intended to sell his Clerks of the Crown Ireland.

annually paid off, in addition to the interest agreed shares he would get the greater profit, if not it would PRIVATE BUSINESS TRANSACTED. to be paid for such sum. have no effect.

Clause 5. Providing sites for New Churches.He called Mr. White, who proved the execution of

Friday, June 19.

That it shall be lawful to erect any such new church the Parliamentary contract by the plaintiff, and put Lare, Belfast, and Ballymena Railway

or chapel on any glebe land on any part of such new in copies of the deeds, which were taken as read, and Limerick, Ennis, and Killaloe Railway Mountmellick Junction Railway

separate parish; and it shall be lawful to take any which authorized the trustees and directors to pro- Templemore and Nenagh Railway.

quantity of such glebe land, not exceeding in the ceed to Parliament to obtain a bill next session.

whole two acres, for the purpose of forming a church.

Monday, June 22.
Knowles, Q.C. having replied,
Archbishop of York's Estate

yard for the burial of the dead; and the glebe land so ERLE, J. in summing up, said, there were two De Winton's Estate

taken for the site of such new church, and for such grounds on which the plaintiff claimed a verdict. Newry, Warrenpoint, and Rostrevor Railway.

churchyard, shall thereafter be vested in the ordinary First, the fact that Wontner had contracted for sixty

for the use of such separate parish; provided always, shares, parcel of 120,000, and that the statement that

Friday, June 19.

that such glebe lands shall not be taken unless the all these shares had been allotted, was a material Argyll Canal

ordinary and the clerk in holy orders who may be in inducement to him to pay his deposit. If the jury Banffshire Roads

the possession of the glebe land shall give their conCaledonian Railway were of that opinion, they ought to find their verdict

sent thereto in writing. Eastern Counties for him on this ground:-Was the advertisement London and Blackwall Railway

Clause 6 provides that funds now applicable to false to the knowledge of the defendant ? If they Midland Railways

repairs of churches may in certain cases be applied for thought it was, and that it was a material induce- Newcastle and Berwick Railway

the purposes of this Act. ment to the plaintiff to pay his deposit, and that he

Darlington Junction Railway would not have paid it had he known the real facts, Portbury Pier and Railway they would find for the plaintiff. Secondly, did they West London Scottish Central Railway

HOUSE OF COMMONS. think that this scheme was an abortive scheme, and Worcester Gas.

PAUPER LUNATICS ACT. at an end? If they thought so, on this ground also

Monday, June 22.

TUESDAY, June 23.-Sir J. TROLLOPE wished to they must find for the plaintiff; for it had been deter- Belfast and County Down Railway

repeat a question which he had already put to the right mined in the Court of Exchequer that, if a party paid Leicester and Bedford Railway.

hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home a deposit on an abortive scheme, he had a right to

Tuesday, June 23.

Department. It was, whether it was the intention recover back his deposit. And they would also

Airdrie and Coatbridge Waterworks say

of her Majesty's government to amend the Pauper whether the deed was executed by the plaintiff on the Ardrossan Municipal Police and Improvement

Lunatics Act during the present session, as regarded same understanding with which he had paid the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway.

the discretion allowed to magistrates in case of appli. money.

cations for the relief of lunatic paupers being made to The jury, after a short consultation, found a ver- Banffshire Roads

Wednesday, June 24.

them.-Sir J. GRAHAM said that in consequence of dict for the plaintiff on both grounds. Damages,

Thursday, June 25.

a doubt that existed, whether it was mandatory or 821. 10s.; and that the plaintiff executed the deed Askew's Estate

not on magistrates to send pauper lunatics to work. with the same understanding as he had paid the Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway

houses, the question was submitted to the law officers Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund. money.

of the Crown, who decided that it was mandatory,

It was then the intention of the Government to make
Railway Gauge, Major General Pasley's Report
New South Wales Immigration-Paper

an alteration in that respect this session.
Vagrants-- Return

REGISTRAR OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES COURT. Railway Bills Classification-Twentieth Report of Com- Mr. HUME begged to ask some of the members of Summary.

her Majesty's Government, whether any further inBricks--Return The measure of the Session has become Revenue-Account

formation had been received from New South Wales, law, and with its birth expires the Government. Van Diemen's Land-Correspondence

respecting the defalcation of Mr. Manning, the reOf course, in such circumstances, nothing Keighley Union-Mr. Austin's Report Van Diemen's Land, Convict Discipline-Paper

gistrar of the court there, and whether the Govern.

ment had taken any means to repay the creditors on more will be done than necessity compels. Sudbury Union-Paper

the funds in that court.--The CHANCELLOR of the No projects of law will proceed beyond their international Copyright-Convention with Prussia Bills-Real Property Conveyance

EXCHEQUER was understood to say that proceed. present emergency. The business bills will be

Administration of Justice

ings had been instituted against the sureties of Mr. rapidly carried through their various stages,

Charitable Trusts

Manning, and that the amount of their bonds, which and then the Parliament will be prorogued, to

Friendly Societies, Lords' Amendments

had been recovered, would be applied in liquidation Ordnance Survey

of the creditors' claims.
give the new Government time to prepare Clerks of the Crown, &c. (Ireland)
their measures.

All the threatened changes in

Western Australia
Collisions of Shipping-Returns

Mr. C. BULLER, according to notice, moved that the law may, we presume, be deemed as de- Vaccine Institution-- Report

a select committee should be appointed to consider ferred, if not destroyed, unless the impatience Poor Law Commissioners – Paper

the best means of providing a General Record Office of the landlords should induce the hurrying of

Poor Law (Norfolk and Suffolk)-Report from Sir John for England and Wales. The resolution was not

Walsham the Conveyancing Bill into a law, amid the Railway Bills-Return

opposed, but a discussion took place on the propriety mob of bills that mark the close of a Session. Postage Convention (France) —Additional Articles of submitting to the same committee the consideraCopper, Tin, Zinc, Lead, and Lead Ore-Accounts

tion of the best means to be adopted for recording the By the bye, this curious measure has been al- Newcastle Coal Turn Bill— Return

works of the ancient historians of this country. This most doubled in length in its passage through Sugar-Account

discussion was entered into by Mr. W. Wynne, Mr. the committee, by the addition of short forms, Railway Bills Classification–Twenty-first Report of Com- Hume, Mir. Protheroe, Mr. Christie, and the Chanapplicable to various other kinds of convey

cellor of the Exchequer, after which the original moances. The Friendly Societies Bill has been

tion was carried.

Bills in Progress. so changed both by Lords and Commons, that

NEW STATUTES scarcely an original feature remains. It is, CHURCHES.- The following is an outline of the

Of the Session 9 Victoria. however, very much improved, and mainly Bill to provide for the erection and repair of Churches through the instrumentality of Mr. Nerson, in consolidated ecclesiastical districts (just intro

(Continued from page 121.) who pointed out to the government

duced into the House of Commons by Mr. R. [In this record of actual Legislation, only the statutes and radical defects in the measure, as originally recites

Hodgson and Mr. H. Elphinstone). The preamble parts of statutes of peculiar importance to the Profession are

the several Acts for building additional given verbatim. Of rest, title, or a brief analysis framed, and his suggestions were at once Churches, from 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, to 8 and 9 Vict. c. only, is preserved here.] adopted. 70; and then proceeds to enact, “ That it is expedient

to provide for the erection and repair of Churches and An Act to Indemnify such Persons in the United
Amperial Parliament.

Chapels in consolidated ecclesiastical districts; and
that consolidated ecclesiastical districts be considered

Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves PUBLIC BUSINESS TRANSACTED.

distinct parishes." Churchwardens or other officers for Offices and Employments, and to extend the are to be appointed for new parishes.

Time limited for those purposes respectively Clause 3 relates to the rate for building new until the 25th day of March, 1847. Friday, June 19. Clerks of Crown, &c. Ireland_" to provide that the offices of churches :- That it shall be lawful for the rate-payers

(May 14, 1846.) Clerk of the Crown, and Clerk of the Peace in Ireland, in any such new separate parish (provided always This is the annual Indemnity Act, whose provisions shall be held by the same person.”'

that the consent in writing of the ordinary shall be it is unnecessary to repeat.





« PreviousContinue »