1853. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of scarcely call upon us to presume duress.] The Commissioners clearly considered that the consent and the signature of the apprentice were two distinct requisites. Lord CAMPBELL C. J. I am sure that this case has been very well argued: but I come to the conclusion that the order is good. For, in the first place, we are not to presume that a regulation published by the Poor Law Commissioners has been violated. As to the facts of consent and of the execution in duplicate, it seems to me that they need not appear on the face of the indenture and we must presume, from the magistrate's certificate, that these requisites were complied with in fact. Had they not been complied with, I should still have been prepared to say that they were directory only, and that the failure to comply with them did not make the binding void. The Rules do give this effect of avoidance in the case of one regulation, namely, that for the signature of the apprentice: but, as to the other provisions, the validity does not depend upon the strict pursuance of any form. COLERIDGE J. I am of the same opinion. I think we must suppose the Poor Law Commissioners to have expressed what provisions those are, the non-pursuance of which is to invalidate the indenture: they do say this as to one provision; they do not repeat it as to the others and, as to a great many of these, it is quite clear, from their nature, that they are only directory, and could not possibly be supposed to affect the validity of the indenture. Then the magistrate orders and allows this indenture under one statute, and under another certifies that the Rules of the Commissioners have been complied with. Surely this aids the ordinary presumption which exists, that all is rightly done when the contrary does not appear. I admit that, if you shew a condition which can be satisfied only by something appearing on the face of the instrument, no presumption will aid the absence of this. But in the present case the necessity for the consent of the parents exists only when parents are alive; and it is in that case only that the provision as to dispensation, and as to the ground of dispensation appearing in the indenture, applies. And, as to the consent of an apprentice, it is not said that this must appear on the face of the indenture, but only that he must sign without aid; the object probably being to secure a fulfilment of the requisite, which we find earlier, that he should be able to write. WIGHTMAN J. There is nothing on the face of the indentures to shew that the Rules of the Commissioners have not been complied with. I think, in the first place, that the Rules are, with a single exception, only directory; and, in the second place, that the certificate raises the presumption that they have been complied with in fact. ERLE J. I agree also in the presumption of fact, and in holding the regulations in question to be only directory. It is clear to my mind that great mischief has been done where parties, having acted on an instrument as valid, find their intention defeated by the neglect of some regulation relating to the instrument. It is best to hold such regulations to be directory only, except where the Legislature has expressly said that the noncompliance shall make the instrument void. Order of Sessions confirmed. 1853. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of ST. MARY MAGDALEN. 1853. Wednesday, November 9th. WESTOBY against DAY. FOR the certificate of the custom of the city of London in this case, see ante, p. 628. Tuesday, November 10th. Trover, for quicks and plants, against a Railway Company. Plea: Not IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. (Error from the Queen's Bench.) RICHARD GILES against The TAFF VALE ERROR Railway Company. RROR on a bill of exceptions tendered by the defendants. Trover for quicks and plants. guilty. On the trial, the Judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conversion by defendants. To this ruling defendants excepted. Verdict for plaintiffs. The bill of exceptions set forth the whole evidence. By this it appeared that plaintiff was a contractor planting hedges for defendants at one of their stations, and was owner of live thorn plants which had been, by leave of F., who was called in the bill of exceptions the general superintendant of the Company, placed in a piece of ground belonging to defendants and close to the station. Plaintiff demanded these thorns from the station master, and was referred to F.; and F., professing to act for defendants, refused to let the plaintiff remove them. It did not appear, distinctly, when or under what circumstances the thorns were brought to the station. The majority of the Judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber (Jervis C. J., Pollock C. B., Alderson B., Muule J., Platt B., Williams J., and Talfourd J.) construed the bill of exceptions as meaning that the thorns had been carried as merchandize on the line, and left in the ground of the defendants with their roots covered as a mode of warehousing them for a reasonable time in such a manner that they might remain alive. Parke B. construed the bill of exceptions as, at most, shewing evidence that the thorns had once been carried on the line, and had afterwards been left in defendants' ground for an indefinite time, for the convenience of the plaintiff as contractor, and not as an incident to the carriage. Martin B. doubting whether, on the true construction, the relation of carrier and customer ever existed at all with respect to these thorns. : Held by all the Judges that it is the duty of a company, carrying on trade, to have on the spot an officer with authority to do for the company all that, in the ordinary exigencies of their business, might require to be done promptly that, in this respect, there A 1853. GILES V. TAFF VALE is no difference between an nership and a ordinary partcorporation: sufficient evi that there was Plea: Not guilty. Issue thereon. (It is not necessary to notice the other pleadings.) Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment having passed in the Queen's Bench for the plaintiff, error was suggested by the defendant. bill of exceptions tendered by the defendant, at the trial before Wightman J. at the Glamorganshire Spring Assizes, was tacked to the record. The bill of exceptions set forth that, at the trial, "the plaintiff proved that he, plaintiff, was, in 1851, a sub-contractor under one Jones; that he received in part payment from Jones 90,000 quicks; that they were worth the sum of 417.; that they were the remainder of some he had bought; that they that it was not were planted at the Aberaman Station, to keep them shew any aualive. That, early in 1851, he, plaintiff, sold 1400 of the same quicks; that he took them away; that objection was made to his taking them; that plaintiff no dence that F. had authority to this extent from the de fendants, and necessary to thority under seal. Held also, by all the Judges, that to give up, or refuse with the de fendants in went to take away the remainder in the course of the to give up, on demand, following season; that the clerk of the station would goods left not let plaintiff take them away without the order of Fisher, the general superintendant of The Taff Vale Railway Company; that plaintiff applied to Fisher repeatedly; and that Fisher would not let plaintiff have the course of their trade as carriers, was an act within the scope of such authority; and that, on the construction put on the bill of exceptions by the majority of the Judges, these thorns were so left, and therefore there was evidence of a conversion by defendants. Parke B. was of opinion that the implied authority of such an officer is strictly confined to acts within the scope of the Company's ordinary business, and that there was no evidence that F. had a more extensive power: that goods warehoused for a short time, as a custody ancillary to their carriage, would have been in the possession of the Company in the course of their ordinary trade; and to refuse to deliver those was within the scope of F.'s authority: but that it was beyond the primà facie authority of F. to allow the thorns to be planted for an indefinite time for plaintiff's convenience. Parke B. therefore doubted whether a refusal to deliver up goods so left was within the scope of F.'s authority, or would make defendants liable and therefore he did not concur in holding the direction right, not being satisfied that evidence had been given upon which a jury could find for defendants. Per Maule J. The goods having been once in defendants' possession, it lay within the scope of F.'s authority to deliver them up, whether, in allowing them to be planted, he exceeded his power or not. And, further, that it was not beyond the primà facie power of F. to grant any reasonable accommodation to customers; and to allow plaintiff to store his quicks in their Company's ground till wanted was not prima facie an unreasonable accommodation. Judgment affirmed. 1853. GILES V. TAFF VALE them; that plaintiff offered to sell the said quicks; and that Fisher refused: that plaintiff had other quicks at the Navigation Station, 120,000, which the plaintiff had paid for, and for the carriage, and that Fisher had given plaintiff leave to plant them in a piece of ground of the Company's there, to keep them alive; and that plaintiff sold some of them to Mr. Phillips; that plaintiff applied to Fisher for leave to remove them; and that Fisher said they were not the property of plaintiff, and claimed them for The Taff Vale Railway Company, and refused to allow plaintiff to remove them; that plaintiff went to Mr. Bushell, who is managing director of The Taff Vale Railway Company, and he would not let plaintiff take them away that Fisher said plaintiff should not remove the quicks unless plaintiff would give to him, Fisher, an indemnification for those which the Company had used at the Aberaman Station; that Fisher said to plaintiff, "You must give me a receipt as if you had been paid for them:" that plaintiff had worked for The Aberdare Company; that they were fencing with quicks, but not by contract in writing; that the sale by Jones to plaintiff was of quicks at Aberaman, which Jones had got from Ireland: that plaintiff received a letter from the Company in consequence of an application for these quicks; that the quicks at Aberaman were not the refuse, but the overplus that plaintiff was about three weeks or a month fencing for The Aberdare Company: that it was in 1850 that the conversation with Jones occurred; and, further, that Jones in the year 1850 contracted to fence the Aberdare railway with quicks: that the plaintiff was employed under Jones; that the quicks belonged to Jones; that some of them remained unused: that Jones sold them to plaintiff in part payment of what the |