merely to discover defects in it; and that when so
read, the specification must be taken to refer to that
peculiar adaptation of the knives to the old inven-
tion, which was new, as appeared by the evidence at
the trial. If a specification sufficiently explains the
whole principle of the invention claimed by the
patentee, it is not necessary to set forth the results
of that principle.
This case came before the Court of Exchequer
Chamber in the shape of a bill of exceptions to the
direction of the learned judge (Patteson) at the trial
of this case, which was an action for the infringement
of a patent for the invention of a certain improve
ment in a machine for cutting Swedish and other
turnips, mangold-wurzel, and other roots used as
food for sheep, horned cattle, and other animals. To
the declaration, which was in the usual form, there
were several pleas-1st, not guilty; 2nd, that the
plaintiff was not the true inventor; 3rd, that the
invention was not new; 4th, that the plaintiff had
not sufficiently described the nature of his said inven-
tion; 5th, that the alleged invention was not an im-
provement; and, lastly, a plea which set out the
specification; and then stated that, though part of
the alleged invention was new, a part of it was old,
and that the specification did not sufficiently describe
that part. The plaintiff denied the last plea, and,
by the general replication de injuria, joined issue
on or traversed the others. The specification, as
set out in the declaration, was in substance as follows:
The invention was in the first place described as "my
invention of certain improvements on machines for
cutting Swedish and other turnips, mangold-wurzel,
and other roots used as food for sheep, horned cattle,
and other animals." The specification then pro-
ceeded to refer to the accompanying plan of a rotary
cutter as shewn in operation; this rotary cutter being
formed as a drum mounted upon an axle, certain parts
of its periphery having different radii, in order
to produce the recesses into which the roots of
the turnips were to descend. It then proceeded to
refer to the plates, and described the operation of the
machine in these words: "The rotary cutter thus
constructed would then appear as shewn in perspec-
tive at figure 6, and in revolving upon its axle would
bring the knives progressively into operation one after
another, their upper cutting edges being all coincident
in the same cylindrical curve, and their radial edges
revolving in parallel circles at right angles to the axis
of the drum." Then it went on to say, that in this
way "the knives will be brought successively into
operation, and so cut the roots into strips or narrow
pieces, which pieces or strips will pass through the
apertures behind the knives into the interior of the
drum, and will from thence fall through the shoot
below on to the floor, or into any vessel provided be-
neath to receive them. By the construction of the
knife shewn and the mode of attaching it to the drum,
I am enabled to replace any one of the knives acci-
dentally broken. But I sometimes construct the
knives by bending plates of steel in the form shewn
in perspective at figure 7, the cutting edges being
placed in the same relative positions as before de-
scribed. When the plates are affixed to the cast-iron
part of the drum, the curved part of the plates
forms that portion of the periphery of the
drum marked b. in the former figure. I wish it to
be understood that I do not intend to confine myself
to any precise number of cutters or knives to be
affixed to a rotary drum, nor do I at all times employ
two sets of cutters, as shewn in the figures referred
to, and though I have described the knives as placed
in two series on opposite sides of the middle plates Watson, Q.C. for the defendant in error.-The an.
of the drum, yet I do not confine myself to that ar-swer to the objections which have been raised to the
rangement, as I sometimes place the knives in a validity of this patent is very short. The defendant
diagonal range along the drum from end to end,
which would be illustrated by cutting the drum into
two parallel portions at right angles to its axis in the
dotted line shewn in figure 2. Lastly, I wish it to
be understood that I claim the adaptation of the par-
ticular form of knife with two cutting edges, shewn
in the drawing, and also the placing of those knives
in diagonal ranges in the manner described, or any Hill, in reply, referred to Macfarland v. Price.
other suitable construction of knives, the faces of the June 15.-PARKE, B. now proceeded to deliver
radial cutting edges of which shall stand parallel to the judgment of the Court. His lordship first
the ends of the drum, and to each other." The adverted to the evidence, and to the pleadings on
specification then referred to another example of the the record, of which an abstract has been given
adaptation of a series of straight knives arranged in above, and then proceeded thus: The counsel
conjunction with the diagonal cutting edges. On for the defendant made eight objections, which
the trial, several witnesses were examined, some of are fully set out in the bill of exceptions, and in-
whom gave evidence that no machine like the plain- sisted that on all or some of those the learned judge
tiff's had been seen before,-though there were ought to have directed the jury to find that the plain-
machines, and particularly a machine invented by tiff was not entitled to recover. He refusing to do
one Snowdon, which cut by means of knives arranged so, and having directed the jury to the contrary, an
on a drum, but that the knives were so placed in the exception is taken to his direction. The objections
machine as to make their cutting at the same taken are in substance three: first, that the principle
moment, one knife cutting horizontally, or in a of the plaintiff's invention was not new, and was the
cylindrical direction as the drum went round, whilst same as that of Snowdon's machine; secondly, that
the others were vertical or parallel to the sides of the specification was not very clear, but must be
the drum, and the effect was said to be that the taken to describe the subject-matter of the patent as
machine required great force to be used in the being the rotary cutter, consisting of a drum fur-
moving power, and that the strips of turnips nished with knives, and that the cutter formed of
were compressed in passing in the intervals the drum and the knives was old, and consequently
between the knives, so as to lead to the clogging of
the machine. The evidence also was, that the plain-
tiff's machine worked with less power, because the

knives being arranged diagonally came into action be void for a similar reason, and that the table-
successively; and that as one finished its work before machine was constructed on that principle; 3rdly,
another began, there was no compression of the slices that the specification is not sufficient, for that it did
of turnips, and therefore no clogging. Some witnesses not sufficiently describe the old and the new, nor
also stated, that there was, before the patented ma- describe the principle of the patent, nor state the
chine, a machine described as a table cutter, which angle at which the knives are to be placed. The
had vertical and horizontal cutters, which severally two latter objections were those mainly in-
struck the turnips at the same time, but slightly be- sisted upon before us, and properly so; because
hind each other, so that the pieces of turnips were there can be no doubt that the principle of the
jammed together in passing through the machine. The plaintiff's invention, which is a machine to cut by
witnesses likewise said that the plaintiff's invention steps, is different from that of Snowdon's machine in
was of great practical utility. It was admitted that which the knives cut simultaneously, and from that
the defendant made and sold machines similar to those of the table cutter, which, though it operated partly
of the plaintiff, cutting step by step, and which, as in the same way, is quite a different sort of machine;
one of the witnesses said, acted on the same prin- and we are of opinion that neither of the other ob-
ciple. It was contended at the trial, on behalf of the jections are well founded. If we look, as we ought to
defendant below (the plaintiff in error), that the plain- look, at the whole specification in a fair and candid spirit,
tiff below was not, upon the evidence, entitled to re- with a desire to be instructed by it, and not merely
cover, because the principle of his invention was not to discover defects in it, then if the specification, which
new, but was the same as that of Snowdon's ma- explains what the patentee himself claims, had really
chine. It was also contended, that the specification comprised every sort of cutting machine, consisting
was not sufficiently precise in its terms, and that it of a drum with knives, no doubt it would have been
must be taken to include every rotary cutter, con- void; for we think the machine of Snowdon was de-
sisting of a drum furnished with knives, or, at all cidedly of that description, and was unquestionably
events, every species of knives arranged in the drum an old invention. So, if the specification had claimed
on what is called the diagonal principle, and that on all sorts of machines for cutting diagonally, not
either construction the invention was open to the ob- simultaneously, it would also have been void; but
jection already stated, that, viz. of being old. It was we think this is not the meaning of the specification,
further argued, that the specification was too vague, which does not claim every kind of cutter with a
and did not sufficiently distinguish the old from the drum, or every species of diagonal cutter; but only
new parts of the invention, nor set forth with dis- a particular species of drum cutter in which the
tinctness the principle of the patent claimed. The knives are placed diagonally. The evidence was
nature of these objections will be better understood that this species of cutting was new. If
by a reference to the judgment of the Court as given Snowdon's machine had been first used subse-
below.
quently to the date of the patent, we think that
Hill, Q.C. for the plaintiff in error.-The plaintiff would have been no infringement of it; nor would the
in error is willing to admit that his machine would be table-cutter have been an infringement. The next
an infringement of the defendant's patent if that pa- objection is as to the sufficiency of the specification,
tent is valid, but he denies its validity. The patent and, admitting that the plaintiff's is an invention of a
is for an improvement in a machine for cutting tur- particular species of a drum-cutter, it is argued that
nips, &c. used as food for sheep and cattle, and it is insufficient, because it does not properly describe
consists in the peculiar construction of a rotary the principle of the patent, nor state the angle at
cutter, and in the adaptation of that cutter to the which the knives ought to be placed; but it appears
machine for cutting turnips. The object of this im- to all of us that it is sufficiently clear, and that the
provement is to prevent the necessity of squeezing knives are to be so placed as that one shall finish its
the turnips and clogging the machine; and it is work before the other commences, which is the whole
worked by less power than the old machine, inasmuch principle of the machine, and that it was not neces-
as the knives come into operation successively. The sary to state what the result of that principle did con-
patent is void, because the specification is too large sist in, viz. the non-compression of the strips of tur-
for the invention. The specification applies to the nips, the prevention of clogging, and the smallest
rotary cutter, which is a cylinder or drum, armed expenditure of moving power. As to the angle at
with knives; but this was not the invention of which the knives ought to be placed, the specification
Gardner, the patentee, for he was not the first who itself does not state it, nor could it do so, for there is
applied the drum armed with knives to the purpose no certain angle. It must depend on two things-
stated in the patent. The specification is not con- the width of the strips to which it may be convenient
fined, as it ought to have been, to the mode by which to the person who uses the machine to cut the tur-
the knives have been adapted to the object in view. nips, and the length of the vertical knives used. And
Another objection to this patent is, that the patentee when the specification is considered in conjunction
claims as his invention the placing of the knives with the evidence, a competent person would have
diagonally; whereas he was not the inventor of the no difficulty in constructing according to it a proper
diagonal principle, but only of the particular mode in machine; nor have we any difficulty in deciding that
which that principle has been applied to this machine; the principle of the defendant's machine is the same
and it is a well-known rule, that a patentee must not as the plaintiff's, of which it is consequently an in-
leave the subject-matter of his patent in doubt, but fringement. The learned judge's direction is there-
must clearly ascertain and describe the nature of his fore right, and the judgment of the Court of Queen's
invention. (Hindmarch on Patents, 183, 184-188, Bench must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
and cases there cited; Bovill v. Mocre, 2 Marshall,
211; S. C. Davison's Patent Cases, 354; Harmar v.
Playne, 11 East, 101.) The objections to this patent
are, then, twofold; 1st, that the patentee claims too
much; 2ndly, that he does not sufficiently point out
what he does claim.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.
Saturday, June 13.
ERROR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
will be reported at the earliest practicable period:-
The Court gave judgment in the following cases, which

DIMES V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judgment reversed.
BYNER V. THE QUEEN.
Judgment affirmed.

THE YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COM

Milner and Others.

Judgment reversed. KEIR V. LEEMAN. Judgment affirmed. After delivering the above judgments, the case of Gossett v. Howard was called on, and the arguments of the Attorney-General, who appeared for the plaintiff in Error, were not concluded at the rising of the Court.

in error claims as his invention the arranging the PANY v. THE QUEEN, on the prosecution of Sir William
knives diagonally in the drum, so that they may cut
successively-he claims a particular species of rotary
cutter on the diagonal principle. He referred to
Minter v. Wells, Webster's Patent Cases, 127; Car-
penter v. Smith, Webster's Patent Cases, 530; Mac-
farland v. Price, Webster's Patent Cases, 75.

the invention being in part not new, the patent was
void; and further, that if the specification included
every species of cutting by knives diagonally, it would

Monday, June 15.

ERROR FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH. TINDAL, C.J., delivered the judgment of the Court in the case of Partridge v. The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, reversing the judgment of the Court below, as to the 1st and 2nd counts in the declaration, and affirming that judgment as to the last count.

WEDLAKE . GARDNER.-Judgment in this case was likewise delivered by PARKE, B. The report will be found suprà.

The arguments of the Attorney-General were then concluded in the case of Gossett v. Howard, and Petersdoff, for the defendant in error, was part heard. No day was named for the further hearing of this case at the rising of the Court; it will, therefore, stand over, we presume, till the sitting of the Court after Michaelmas Term ensuing.

Tuesday, June 16.

ERROR FROM THE COMMON PLEAS. CLIFT V. SCHWABE. Judgment reversed. M'ALPINE . MANGNALL.-This was an action for the infringement of a patent, which had been tried before Tindal, C. J., to whose direction to the jury the plaintiff in error took exception. The patent was entitled as being for improvements in machinery for stretching, drying, and to clear out the starch from between the meshes of such finishing woven fabrics, and the object of the invention was woven fabrics or muslins, whilst undergoing the process of stretching, drying, and finishing, by means of ma chinery, which gave to the frame on which the mualin

was stretched

Thursday, June 18. ERROR FROM THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER. The Court this day delivered judgment in the case of Woodroffe v. Doe dem. Daniel, which will be reported in a very early number of the LAW TIMES. The judgment of the Court of Exchequer was affirmed as to one moiety of the estate for which the ejectment had been brought, and as to the other moiety was reversed.

Bankrupt and Ensolvent Courts.

COMMISSIONERS' COURTS.

Wednesday, June 24.

a diagonal motion; this motion had, felonious, must be animo furandi and lucri causa. or sendee; it does not in fact 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 below), been produced by manual labour, and the patent was consequently for the machinery by which this per Grose, J. in R. v. Hammond, 2 Leach, 1089.) the real owner. The last point, that, at all events, 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, 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 anthe entire machine which was new, and that it was bad for not sentence in Terence-"Quid mihi lucri est te fallere?" swer. Cur. adv. vult. distinguishing the new from the old. Several other points 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. Conviction 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 causd; for in that case there Judgment affirmed. was the greatest advantage to one of the prisoners. In R. v. Morfit (Russ. & Ry. 307), R. v. Handley Re Jacklin (1 New S. C. 208, 13 L. J. N. S. M. Ć. (Car. & M. 547), R. v. Gruncell (9 Car. & P. 365), 139), R. v. Richards (1 Car. & K. 522), R. v. Blighton (Dickenson's Q. S. 202, 4th edit.), although an extended meaning was given to the words lucri causâ, still it was held to be a necessary ingredient in the offence. Now here there was no gain or advantage to the prisoner by intercepting and destroying the letter; it was a letter which she herself had put in motion; and her obtaining a situation did not depend upon it. It would have been a different thing if she had intercepted an answer, which she believed to be unsatisfactory. Here, she goes, as it were, to take her own letter; for Mrs. Dangerfield was only the agent of the prisoner for the purpose of making inquiries as to her character. Suppose she had written the letter herself, the stopping it might be a fraud upon the post-office, but would it be a larceny? R. v. God. frey (8 Car. & P. 563) is an authority for saying that it would not. Although the post-office considers all letters in the course of transmission through the post the property of the Postmaster-General, still the prisoner might well have considered this letter as her own; and if so, she was not guilty of a larceny; and this quite independently of the strict question of the law, whether the property of a letter is in the sender or sendee. Lastly, this was a false pretence, and not a larceny, because by the delivery of the letter to the prisoner the property was parted with.

Cur. adr. vult.

THOMAS V. HUDSON.-Watson, Q.C. for the defendant in
Error. Martin, Q.C. in reply.
LEDSAM v. RUSSELL.-Sir F. Kelly for the plaintiff in

Friday, June 19.

Error. M. Smith, for the defendant in Error.

Cur, adv, vult.

CROWN CASES RESERVED.

Saturday, April 25.

(Before all the Judges except ALDERSON, B., COLE-
RIDGE, J., MAULE, J., & WIGHTMAN, J.)
REG. v. ELIZABETH JONES.
Larceny of a post letter.-Intercepting a post letter,
and burning it.
A servant about to quit the service of her mistress
applied to another person for a situation, and was
promised an engagement if the answer of her former
mistress to a letter inquiring as to her character
should be satisfactory. That letter was written and
posted; but the servant, having been in the mean
time dismissed by her former mistress, and told that
she would not give her a character, went to the post-
office, and applied for her mistress's letters, which
were given to her. She then took from the rest the
letter containing the inquiry as to her character, and
burnt it. The rest she sent to her mistress. Upon
an indictment for stealing a post letter, held that
she was properly convicted.

The prisoner was indicted before the Lord Chief Baron, at the last assizes for the county of Hereford, for stealing a post letter, and was convicted upon her own confession, subject to the opinion of the judges upon the following case:

The prisoner, Elizabeth Jones, pleaded guilty to an indictment under 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 28, for stealing, at Ross, from an officer of the post-office, a post letter, the property of her Majesty's PostmasterGeneral.

The prisoner had been cook in the employ of Mrs. Garbett, of Upton Bishop, whose service she was about to leave, having herself given notice to do so, and was in treaty with a Mrs. Dangerfield, of Cheltenham, for a similar situation. Mrs. Dangerfield had consented to employ her, if a satisfactory answer from Mrs. Garbett should be returned to a letter to be written for the purpose of making inquiries respecting her character; this letter, the subject of the present indictment, was written by Mrs. Dangerfield, directed to Mrs. Garbett, and posted at Cheltenham, was from thence duly forwarded to the post-office at Ross.

Bros, for the Crown.-It is admitted that this of-
fence must contain all the ingredients of larceny at
common law, and here all that is necessary ap-
pears.
There can be no question as to the property,
because the Act of Parliament (sec. 40) expressly
provides that the property may be laid in the Post-
master-General; and the case, therefore, is, that the
prisoner has taken the chattel of another by means of
a fraud; which, if done animo furandi, is larceny.
[POLLOCK, C. B.-Suppose the prisoner had seen a
letter lying on a table, and had applied a lighted paper
to it, would it have been larceny?] There would have
been no asportation then. [POLLOCK, C. B.-Then
if burning it would not be a larceny, is the taking of it
for the purpose of burning it a larceny?] The ques-
tion is, whether it is taken animo furandi; and whe-
ther a person can be said to convert a chattel to his
own use by burning it, as he certainly may in some
cases. The main argument on the other side is, that
there is no evidence that the taking was lucri causâ;
but those words are not to be found in the original
definition of larceny. (3 Inst. 107, citing the Mirror;
Bracton, Lib. iii. c. 32, p. 150; 1 Hale, 503; 1 Hawk.
P. C. c. 33.) They are first introduced into the de-
finition of larceny by Blackstone (4 Com. 229), who
borrows them from the civil law; but at all events
there is no authority for saying that the word lucrum
means an advantage which can be measured by a pe-
cuniary amount. In R. v. Cabbage (Russ. & Ry.
292), the advantage was prevention of evidence by de-
by money. Here the object was to stop an inquiry
into the prisoner's character, the reply to which
would have been prejudicial to her. R. v. Morfit
(Russ. & Ry. 307) is also, for the same reason, an
authority in support of this conviction.
Richards (1 Car. & K. 532), Tindal, C. J. left it to
the jury to say "whether the prisoner had put an iron
axle into a furnace with a felonious intent to convert
it to a purpose for his own profit; for, if he did so, it
was a larceny;" although the iron would go back to
the master's in another form; and the only advan-
tage which the prisoner would get, would be 1d. for
the extra weight drawn out of the furnace, according
to the mode adopted of paying for the work. R. v.
Godfrey (8 Car. & P. 563) is a very different case: it
arose out of an election squabble; and all that the
learned judge said was, that if a letter were opened
out of idle curiosity, it would not be a felony.
Huddleston.-The definition in the Mirror contains
the word "egagne," which is equivalent to the "lu-
crum" of the civil law. Lambard, in his "Eirenar-
cha," gives a similar definition; and all the cases
which have been cited shew that some advantage to
be gained is one of the ingredients of larceny. Then
here there is no evidence of any sort of advantage;
and as to the property in the letter, the Act only pro-
vides that it may be laid in the Postmaster-General,
to avoid the difficulty of laying it either in the sender

In R. v.

Mrs. Garbett having found fault with the prisoner for allowing the friend of another servant to break-stroying a horse, which clearly could not be measured fast in the kitchen without her leave, discharged her from her service, and told her that a character would not be given to her. The day after her dismissal she went to the post-office at Ross, and there applied to the clerk on duty for the letter from Cheltenham, addressed to Mrs. Garbett, stating that she was a servant in Mrs. Garbett's employ, and that Mrs. Garbett expected a letter from Cheltenham that morning, which she was to take; but upon being informed that the one letter by itself could not be given, she first took from the office all the letters for Mr. and Mrs. Garbett, including that written by Mrs. Dangerfield, and then selected the one which was the subject of the present indictment, and burnt it, but delivered the others to the person who was in the habit of conveying the letters from the Ross post-office to the inhabitants of Upton Bishop, and they reached Mr. and Mrs. Garbett in safety.

The question for the opinion of the Judges is, whether the taking and destroying of the letter under these circumstances amounted to larceny. Huddleston, for the prisoner.-This is a conviction upon an indictment under the 28th section of 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36; and to support it, all the ingredients of a larceny at common law must appear; but here there is a total absence of one material ingredient, viz. the lucri causá. All the definitions of larceny, impliedly or expressly, shew that the taking, to be

(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) Re WM. HURNELL. Assignments by traders. A trader who assigns his property after service of writ will be deemed to have been guilty of fraudulent preference as against the creditor for whose debt such action was brought. It is his duty to file a declaration of insolvency.

The bankrupt had applied in August last for his certificate, but was opposed by Mr. Pain, on behalf of the creditors, on the ground that, after having been served with writs for various debts, he had assigned some property to his own foreman, and permitted his brother-in-law to take in execution all his other property. Judgment was deferred, but at the urgent request of the bankrupt it was this day given.

His HONOUR went very minutely into the facts of the case, stating that he should at all events have postponed the certificate for three years, because the bankrupt, after having been served with writs at the suit of creditors, had assigned his property in Leadenhall-street to his own foreman, and had permitted his brother-in-law to take in execution all his property in Windmill. street, and finally refused the certificate altogether, on the ground that the bankrupt had concealed about 150l. the proceeds of his furniture. His Honour added-I have often stated, and I shall continue to repeat it, until the public mind becomes familiar with the principle, that I shall always consider the date of the first writ served upon a person who afterwards becomes a bankrupt, without having paid the creditor who sued him, as the very latest period at which he must be deemed to have known that bankruptcy was approaching; and I shall always consider every act done, or omitted to be done by him after that date, tending directly or indirectly to the enabling of one or more of his creditors to get the bulk of his property, to the prejudice of the general body, as a serious act of commercial delinquency, to be punished by a postponement of the certificate, according to the circumstances of the case. It often happens that where property has been snatched from the general body of creditors by a seizure under execution, at the instance of one creditor, the bankrupt attempts to excuse himself on the ground that he could not prevent the seizure. I answer, that a trader can prevent such preference, by filing a declaration of insolvency, and it is his duty to do so. he chooses not to perform that duty, he must be punished.

Lisi Prius.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Wednesday, June 17.

(Before Sir F. POLLOCK, C.B.)

If

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. BAILEY. Excise information-Illicit Distillery — License-Sale and use of spirits-Construction of 6 Geo. 4, c. 80, and 6 Geo. 4, c. 81.

A person distilling spirits for use on his own premises in the way of his trade, is equally liable to the duties and penalties imposed by the excise laws as if he distilled for sale.

This was an information at the suit of the AttorneyGeneral against the defendant for penalties under the Excise Laws. The stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 80, s. 26, enacts that if any person shall make or manufacture, deal in, retail, or sell any goods or commodities thereinafter mentioned for the making, or manufacturing, or dealing in, retailing or selling of such goods or commodities, a license is required by the Act. Without taking out such license as is in that behalf required, he, she, or they shall, for every such offence, respectively forfeit and lose the respective penalty thereupon imposed as thereinafter mentioned, that is to say, "Every distiller or maker of low wines or spirits, and every rectifier or compounder of spirits, so offending respectively, shall respectively forfeit and lose 500l." The stat. 6 G. 4, c. 80, s. 30, enacts, "That entry shall be made of the name and abode of the distiller and the place where the premises intended to be entered is, or shall be situate, and a true declaration given of the vessels and utensils erected and intended to be used therein." The 39th section then provides

for the power to enter premises, and where any private or concealed still, back, or other vessel, for making worts or wash, or for making or distilling low wines and spirits, or any privately made spirits or low wines, or any wash or other materials preparing for distillation, are set up or kept, aud to seize the same, and enacts "That, in case they shall not, within ten days next after such seizure, be claimed by the true and lawful owner thereof, then the said stills, backs, and other vessels, spirits, low wines, wash, and other material for distillation, shall be absolutely forfeited, and the premises of any such private or concealed still, back, or other vessel, or the person in whose custody the same shall be found, whether such seizure be claimed or not, shall forfeit and lose for every place in which such private still, back, or other vessel shall be so found, and also for every such still, back, and vessel found therein, the sum of 2001." The information contained counts applicable to these provisions, and in support thereof,

Sir F. Kelly, S.G. (Wilde with him), proved that on the 16th of July last certain excise officers repaired to the premises of the defendant, situate in Globe-road, Mile-end, where he professed to carry on the occupation of purifier of oils and manufacturer of size under the title of "Carter and Sims," and there discovered various vessels and utensils, all of which were used in the process of distillation, while, in various other vessels and vats, was a quantity of spirits in various stages of manufacture. One of the men, engaged by the defendant as his foreman, proved that spirits of nitre and ammonia had been continually manufactured on the premises, and that the plain spirit had also been made there, some of which had been supplied in large quantities to the defendant's

customers.

At the close of the case for the Crown, which abundantly established the connection of the defendant with the premises and vessels in question, either as part or sole owner,

Martin, Q.C. (with whom were Dowdeswell and Duncan), on behalf of the defendant, submitted that he was not liable to the penalties sought to be recovered in this information. He was prepared to shew to, and hoped to satisfy, the Chief Baron that the defendant had not in any degree infringed the statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 80 & 81, for that his distillery was quite legal. The statutes in which the information was grounded were meant to apply solely to distillers and makers of low wines and spirits for sale, and did not touch those who distilled wines and spirits on their own premises for the purpose of making some other manufacture in which they dealt. The witnesses for the Crown had admitted that the great bulk of the spirit manufactured at this place was used in the making of sal volatile and sweet spirits of nitre; and, on the true construction of these Acts, the defendant was prepared to shew that he was not liable to these penalties. This was done by many of the great wholesale chemists, and would be equally liable with the defendant.

The learned Chief Baron then directed the jury in consonance with this opinion so expressed, and they found a verdict for the Crown.

Thursday, June 28.

agents.

Knowles and Willes, for the plaintiff; and Crowder and Rawlinson, for the defendant.

his own account, and so defraud the revenue of the about twelve actions against as many different comduties chargeable on the materials used by him in his mittee men. trade, and on which he would pay those duties if he The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said had bought them. Such a state of things would be that he should leave to the jury the same questions most dangerous, and the proposition was a most which he had left in the case of Reynell v. Lewisabused one, in my opinion. For this reason it was namely, what was the effect of the defendant having that I am unwilling to listen to any argument on the consented to become a member of the provisional matter. At the same time I am ready, for I am committee-which was a question entirely for the bound to be so if the argument be pressed; but as jury-and then whether that consent authorized any I am willing to reserve the point for solemn dis-other person, the other members of the committee, cussion by the Court next Term, I think any argument the solicitors, or the secretary, to pledge the name of now would be wasted, as I shall hold as I have the defendant for the payment of certain reasonable expressed myself, and so direct the jury on the state and necessary expenses; and if so, then whether, in of the law. consequence of the appearance of certain names in the list of the committee, the plaintiff had been induced to take them as security for payment, and thereupon to furnish the outlay the reimbursement of which he now sought. This case presented topics for strong remarks, which remarks it was not his duty to withhold. This was one of those companies pretend(Before POLLOCK, C. B. and a Special Jury.) ing to be a railway company which had never had any BANKS v. GOODE. existence at all, and it appeared to him that the Liabilities of Provisional Committees.—Advertising practice of getting provisional committees together by asking certain persons to consent to become as it were The question for the jury is, whether the consent to be- a few committeemen, to give a colour to the concern, come a member of the committee was merely intended was a system which was open to very strong observato express approval of the project, or was it intended tions. Now, he could not in any way understand to express, not only approval of the line, but willing-how gentlemen could consent to become members of ness to incur the preliminary expenses? If the jury a provisional or any other committee under an inbe of opinion that the purpose, in putting down the demnity from the persons who were, in truth, getting name, was only to express approval, and not to share it up for the purpose of holding them out to the world the expenses, the person who did so with the former as bonâ fide committee men, when, at the same time, view is not liable for the payment of them. they were neither more nor less than, by that act, the The rule laid down by Parke, B. in Low v. Wilson, as mere instruments of the very solicitors by whose perto the non-liability of members of the Provisional suasion they had been induced to join the committee. Committee, where there is a Managing Committee, When a number of persons were got together in these is correct. companies under the indemnity of the solicitors, he must confess that it appeared to him to be a delusion, not only upon the public and the world at large, but This was an action to recover the sum of 5601. upon all other parties who might become connected brought by the plaintiff, an advertising agent, against with them, or with a company upon other and difthe defendant, a member of the provisional commit- ferent terms. Mr. Downes had said that at the time tee of the Salisbury and Lymington Junction Railway. he was speaking to the defendant upon the subject of The leading features in this case appeared to be, that the the company he had shewn that gentleman his letter company had been projected in the month of Septem- of indemnity. If that were so, it was somewhat odd ber last by a gentleman at the bar of the name of if the defendant had not said that he should have no H. J. Mellor, who had asked the firm of Weall and objection to become a committeeman upon the same Berkeley to act as solicitors to the company, stating terms. However that had been, the fact in either that the preliminary expenses would not be more than case could make no difference in so far as the plaintiff 50l. or 601. A prospectus was accordingly prepared, was concerned, if he was not aware of the existence printed, and issued, prior to which some advertise- of the indemnity; and that he was not had been ments announcing the company were inserted in the proved by the fact of his having brought an action newspapers. Eventually the prospectus was pub- against Downes in the first instance. Now, although lished, as in the case of all other railways, in the Downes had received this indemnity, he was liable to morning and evening journals of London, and in some the plaintiff, and then his own remedy upon the of the country papers. These insertions were, in the indemnity was against the persons from whom majority of instances, the result of the exertion of the he had received it-namely, Messrs. Weall and plaintiff, and it was for the money paid for them that Berkeley. He must in the end have looked to he now brought his action. Mr. Mellor, however, it the parties from whom he had received it-the appeared, had a co-promoter or projector in the per-solicitors of the company. If advertising in the 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 wines 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 comseveral 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 were— the 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 verhave occupied a seat on this bench, 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 his own. against all liability for expenses, and his firm with was the prospectus. That was his guide in the In either case he is a distiller, and as such is liable to 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 tuining 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 his 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 penny 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 said 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 50%., and they accordingly undertook the had gone along with that expressed from the bench cannot 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. I 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 here. 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

66

Verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Monday, June 22.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sought to be recovered, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to maintain the action.

The

times, it did not alter his 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 name 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 827. 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. 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 had 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 rather 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 his 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 althen they would consider whether the expenses in- lotted, 35,460 then remained unpaid; and it was curred had been reasonable and usual; if so, they resolved, that the committee be authorized to would find for the plaintiff. issue shares to the extent required for the deposit in Parliament; if the amount were not subscribed, the whole sum to be returned to the subscribers without reduction. The deposits then paid up were 32,3951. out of which sum 4,3441. had been paid for parliamentary expenses, 14,0501. for engineering and surveying, 8,7917. for law expenses, 2,6891. for advertising; then there were various miscellaneous expenses, and "Dr. Blundell not accounted for, 5127. 10s. ;" that gentleman, the honorary secretary, having left his post in debt to the company this amount, and taken with him the papers of the company. The total expenses amounted to upwards of 31,9001. leaving a balance in the hands of the company of 4921. The reading of this account gave great dissatisfaction to the meeting, and it appeared on inquiry that out of sixty-three provisional committeemen who had each agreed to take 150 shares, only nineteen had paid upon their shares. The plaintiff on that occasion moved an amendment to the effect, "that the committee had appropriated more than half the shares for their own benefit, and had procured the subscribers' money on the faith of an advertisement stating that a full and fair allotment had been made, and on this ground the whole of the deposits ought to be returned, and the committee ought to bear the expense." Great confusion took place, and the amendment was never put. A committee of management of three was appointed, who had since let the affairs of the company drop through, and they were unable to go before Parliament, and the scheme might be said to be virtually abandoned. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to recover the amount of deposit money which he had paid, first, on the ground of failure of consideration on the part of the projectors of the railway; secondly, on the ground of fraud; and third, because the directors had no right to incur expenses at the cost of the shareholders until the amount of the stipulated capital was subscribed.

(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.) PARRETT V. BLUNT and CORNFOOT. Liabilities of Provisional Committee men. The solicitor to a projected Railway Company having ordered the insertion of various advertisements without the order of the committee, can the members of the committee be considered to have authorised their names to be pledged to the plaintiff for payment of such advertisements-quære?

In an action against a member of a provisional committee for debts incurred on behalf of the projected Company, it must be proved,

1st. That defendant had been a member of such committee at the time of the contracting of the debt. 2nd. That he had held himself out to the plaintiff as authorising the contraction thereof, and pledged his name to the plaintiff for the amount.

3rd. That defendant knew that the committee were incurring expenses on behalf of the projected railway upon his credit, and that he consented to have his name so used.

4th. That the expenses so incurred were reasonable and usual.

The plaintiff was an advertising agent. The action was brought to recover from the defendants, as members of the provisional committee of the Jamaica Southern, Eastern, and Northern Railway, the sum of 6411. 6s. 6d. for advertising the scheme from the 9th to the 25th of September, 1845, in the Times and other newspapers.

C. Jones, Serjt. and Wordsworth for the plaintiff. Humfrey and Willes, for the defendant. The company in question was projected during the railway mania in August, 1845, the proposed capital being 1,500,000l. in 30,000 shares of 501. and the names of both the defendants appeared in the prospectus as provisional committee-men.

The secretary to the proposed company and clerk in their offices, Mr. Orlando Aguilar, proved that defendant Blunt frequently attended at the office as a member of the provisional committee, and occasionally acted as chairman of the managing committee. He had also seen the other defendant attend at the company's offices on more than one occasion, and had shewn him a prospectus, with his name in it as a provisional committee-man; but he (Cornfoot) had never attended any meetings of the committee. Mr. Preston, the solicitor to the company, had ordered the insertion of the advertisements, and the

newspapers containing them were each day laid on the office-table. In his cross-examination this witness stated that he and his brother, and two persons named Campbell and Stock, had started the company, and he and his brother, on the 25th of September proposed to give up their right as projectors of the company, for the sum of 15,000l. and 400 shares.

The attendance of Blunt, at two meetings of the provisional committee, was proved from the minutebook. There was nothing, however, in the minutes shewing any express authority from the committee to

insert the advertisements.

Tuesday, June 23.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
WONTNER v. SHAIRP.

Right of allottees to recover back deposits.
Where a managing committee of a railway had ad-
vertised that all the shares were allotted, when in
fact they had allotted only a small proportion of
them, whereby the plaintiff was induced to pay de-
posits:-Held, that he might recover back the deposits
so paid.

And even where defendant had executed the Parlia-
mentary deed and subscribers' agreement under such
a misstatement of the facts: held, that if the jury
should be of opinion that he had executed such deed
on the same understanding with which he had paid
the money, such deed was void as against the plain-
tiff, and no bar to the action.
Knowles, Q. C. Byles, Serjt. and Joseph Brown, for
the plaintiff.

The Solicitor-General, Dowling, Serjt. and Fitz-
herbert, for the defendant.

Knowles opened the case. The plaintiff is a solicitor, and the defendant a man of large property, residing in Sussex-gardens, Hyde-park, and chairman of the allotment committee of the "Direct London and Exeter Railway," for which object a company was formed on the 24th of May last year, and provisionally registered. The prospectus put forth by the company stated its object to be to form a direct line of railway from London to Exeter, with an extension line to Falmouth and Penzance; capital 3,000,000l. in 120,000 shares of 257.; deposit 17.7s. 6d. per share. Then followed the names of a number of noblemen and gentlemen of high respectability as directors and committee of management. The plaintiff applied for two allotments of shares of thirty each, and on the 15th of October last an allotment of the shares was made by the allotment committee, of which the defendant was chairman, and the defendant had allotted to him the shares for which he had applied. Two days afterwards, on the 15th, and subsequently on the 17th of October, advertisements were inserted in the Times newspaper as follows:

"The Direct London and Exeter Railway.-The managing committee of this company hereby give notice, that the allotment of shares is completed, and that the letters will be issued to the public, if possible, this day.

"E. S. BLUNDELL, Honorary Secretary.
"October 13, 1845."

There was then a further advertisement, stating that
the committee had no doubt of being able to comply
with the standing orders, and announcing when
a further "call" per share would be demanded.
On the 17th of October the following advertisement
was inserted in the Times :-

The facts having been proved,

The Solicitor - General now submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, on the ground that he had entered into his contract before the advertisement appeared, and before any imputation of fraud could exist; and, as a partner and shareholder in the company, he was entitled to a share of the effects, and to any benefit which might accrue to him as the holder of the scrip. He could not, therefore, be said to have paid his money without consideration, the company being still in existence, and he having authorized the trustees, by the partnership deed which he had signed, to go before Parliament next session for an act.

ERLE, J. said that the plaintiff's contract was, that he should have allotted to him a certain portion of 120,000 shares, which would produce a capital of 3,000,000l. to form a railway estimated to cost as much; that did not mean that he should have allotted to him a certain portion of 58,000l. and take his chance of the remaining shares being allotted to enable the performance of the contract. The case of Pitchford v. Davis, 5 Meesom and Welsby's Reports, decided it to be a breach of contract on the part of directors not to allot the number of shares, and raise the amount of capital proposed.

A letter from Cornfoot of the 1st of December, was "The Direct London and Exeter Railway, with also read in answer to an application from the plain- extension to Penzance.-The committee of managetiff, 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 shew- allotment of shares, and that the usual letters are this was not that the allotment should go for nothing, uning 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 have 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 consideration that 60 shares were allotted to him as parcel of 120,000 shares; and it seemed to him (Erle, J.) material that every person should understand how many shares were allotted, in order that he might know how many coadjutors he had in the undertaking, and how far the requisite capital was subscribed.

The Solicitor-General then addressed the jury at great length for the defendant.-It was unfortunate that, owing to the misconduct of Dr. Blundell, and to the panic, the undertaking had not proceeded as was anticipated, supported as it was by many names of respectability. If the law were as laid down in Pitchford v. Davis, it was high time that it should be altered; and if this case were determined on that authority, it would be necessary to resort to the Court of the last resort. He should humbly ask the learned judge to lay down the law on the subject, in order that if he differed from him the point might be satisfactorily settled. He contended that the advertisement did no damage to the plaintiff, for the less the number of shares in the market, the more valuable they would be, and if he intended to sell his shares he would get the greater profit, if not it would have no effect.

He called Mr. White, who proved the execution of the Parliamentary contract by the plaintiff, and put in copies of the deeds, which were taken as read, and which authorized the trustees and directors to proceed to Parliament to obtain a bill next session. Knowles, Q.C. having replied,

ERLE, J. in summing up, said, there were two grounds on which the plaintiff claimed a verdict. First, the fact that Wontner had contracted for sixty shares, parcel of 120,000, and that the statement that all these shares had been allotted, was a material inducement to him to pay his deposit. If the jury were of that opinion, they ought to find their verdict for him on this ground:-Was the advertisement false to the knowledge of the defendant? If they thought it was, and that it was a material inducement to the plaintiff to pay his deposit, and that he would not have paid it had he known the real facts, they would find for the plaintiff. Secondly, did they think that this scheme was an abortive scheme, and at an end? If they thought so, on this ground also they must find for the plaintiff; for it had been determined in the Court of Exchequer that, if a party paid a deposit on an abortive scheme, he had a right to recover back his deposit. And they would also say whether the deed was executed by the plaintiff on the same understanding with which he had paid the money.

The jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff on both grounds. Damages, 827. 10s.; and that the plaintiff executed the deed with the same understanding as he had paid the money.

THE LEGISLATOR.

Summary.

Monday, June 22.
Charitable Trusts-" for procuring accounts of receipt and
expenditure by all persons administering charitable trusts
in England."
Baths and Washhouses-" for promoting the voluntary esta-
blishment, in boroughs and parishes in England and
Wales, of public baths and washhouses."
Wednesday, June 24.

first duly obtained), to make a rate for the building of a new church, or for the repairing or for the enlarging any church or chapel now existing, for the use of the inhabitants of such new separate parish: provided always that no such rate shall be valid unless rate-payers occupying at the least three-fourths of the property rated to the relief of the

New Zealand Loan-" to authorise a loan from the Consoli- poor in such new separate parish concur in the dated Fund to the New Zealand Company."

Bricks Return

Revenue-Account

Van Diemen's Land-Correspondence
Keighley Union-Mr. Austin's Report
Van Diemen's Land, Convict Discipline-Paper
Sudbury Union-Paper

International Copyright-Convention with Prussia

Bills Real Property Conveyance

Administration of Justice
Charitable Trusts

Friendly Societies, Lords' Amendments
Ordnance Survey

Clerks of the Crown, &c. (Ireland)
Western Australia
Collisions of Shipping-Returns

Vaccine Institution-Report
Poor Law Commissioners-Paper

Walsham

making such rate; and no such rate shall be valid unless due notice be given of the intention to make such rate for such purpose, by an advertisement published during three successive weeks, in some one newspaper published in the county or counties wherein such parish is situated, signed by the churchwardens, overseers, and ten rate-payers, or where there shall be fewer than ten rate-payers, by rate-payers to the amount of one-fourth of the rates levied for the relief of the poor.

Clause 4 declares that churchwardens may raise Imoney for building new churches by mortgageprovided always, that it shall be covenanted that not less than one-tenth of the sum so borrowed shall be annually paid off, in addition to the interest agreed to be paid for such sum.

Clause 5. Providing sites for New Churches.That it shall be lawful to erect any such new church or chapel on any glebe land on any part of such new separate parish; and it shall be lawful to take any quantity of such glebe land, not exceeding in the whole two acres, for the purpose of forming a churchyard for the burial of the dead; and the glebe land so taken for the site of such new church, and for such churchyard, shall thereafter be vested in the ordinary for the use of such separate parish; provided always, that such glebe lands shall not be taken unless the ordinary and the clerk in holy orders who may be in the possession of the glebe land shall give their consent thereto in writing.

Clause 6 provides that funds now applicable to repairs of churches may in certain cases be applied for the purposes of this Act.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

PAUPER LUNATICS ACT.

TUESDAY, June 23.-Sir J. TROLLOPE wished to repeat a question which he had already put to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's government to amend the Pauper Lunatics Act during the present session, as regarded the discretion allowed to magistrates in case of applications for the relief of lunatic paupers being made to them.-Sir J. GRAHAM said that in consequence of a doubt that existed, whether it was mandatory or not on magistrates to send pauper lunatics to workhouses, the question was submitted to the law officers of the Crown, who decided that it was mandatory. It was then the intention of the Government to make an alteration in that respect this session.

REGISTRAR OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES COURT.

Mr. HUME begged to ask some of the members of her Majesty's Government, whether any further information had been received from New South Wales, respecting the defalcation of Mr. Manning, the registrar of the court there, and whether the Government had taken any means to repay the creditors on the funds in that court.-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to say that proceedings had been instituted against the sureties of Mr. Manning, and that the amount of their bonds, which had been recovered, would be applied in liquidation of the creditors' claims.

GENERAL RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. C. BULLER, according to notice, moved that a select committee should be appointed to consider the best means of providing a General Record Office

THE measure of the Session has become law, and with its birth expires the Government. Of course, in such circumstances, nothing more will be done than necessity compels. No projects of law will proceed beyond their present emergency. The business bills will be rapidly carried through their various stages, and then the Parliament will be prorogued, to give the new Government time to prepare their measures. All the threatened changes in the law may, we presume, be deemed as deferred, if not destroyed, unless the impatience of the landlords should induce the hurrying of the Conveyancing Bill into a law, amid the mob of bills that mark the close of a Session. By the bye, this curious measure has been almost doubled in length in its passage through the committee, by the addition of short forms, applicable to various other kinds of conveyances. The Friendly Societies Bill has been so changed both by Lords and Commons, that scarcely an original feature remains. It is, CHURCHES.-The following is an outline of the however, very much improved, and mainly Bill to provide for the erection and repair of Churches through the instrumentality of Mr. NEISON, in consolidated ecclesiastical districts (just introwho pointed out to the government some Hodgson and Mr. H. Elphinstone). The preamble parts of statutes of peculiar importance to the Profession are duced into the House of Commons by Mr. R. radical defects in the measure, as originally recites the several Acts for building additional given verbatim. Of the rest, the 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.

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

Imperial Parliament.

PUBLIC BUSINESS TRANSACTED.

BILLS READ A FIRST TIME.

Friday, June 19.
Clerks of Crown, &c. Ireland-" to provide that the offices of
Clerk of the Crown, and Clerk of the Peace in Ireland,
shall be held by the same person."

Postage Convention (France)-Additional Articles
Newcastle Coal Turn Bill-Return
Sugar-Account

Copper, Tin, Zinc, Lead, and Lead Ore-Accounts

opposed, but a discussion took place on the propriety of submitting to the same committee the consideration of the best means to be adopted for recording the works of the ancient historians of this country. This discussion was entered into by Mr. W. Wynne, Mr.

Railway Bills Classification-Twenty-first Report of Com- Hume, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Christie, and the Chan

mittee.

Bills in Progress.

70; and then proceeds to enact, "That it is expedient
to provide for the erection and repair of Churches and
Chapels in consolidated ecclesiastical districts; and
that consolidated ecclesiastical districts be considered
distinct parishes." Churchwardens or other officers
are to be appointed for new parishes.

Clause 3 relates to the rate for building new
churches :-That it shall be lawful for the rate-payers
in any such new separate parish (provided always
that the consent in writing of the ordinary shall be

cellor of the Exchequer, after which the original mo-
tion was carried.

NEW STATUTES
Of the Session 9 Victoria.
(Continued from page 121.)

[In this record of actual Legislation, only the statutes and

CAP. XIII.

An Act to Indemnify such Persons in the United Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves for Offices and Employments, and to extend the Time limited for those purposes respectively until the 25th day of March, 1847.

(May 14, 1846.) This is the annual Indemnity Act, whose provisions it is unnecessary to repeat.