This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are millers carrying on business at Cummersdale, to recover from defendants, who are partners in a co-operative shop, under the name of LAMBERT & Co., the sum of £40 14s for goods sold and delivered.

Mr. MCALPIN appeared for the plaintiff; r. HOUGH for the defendants.

The debt was contracted in 1848, 1849 and 1850 by the shopmen for the Society, who afterwards left.

Witnesses were called to speak to the mode of carrying on the business of the Society - the fact that the defendants were members, the recognition of the account in question at a general meeting, and other matters.

Mr. HOUGH contended that the shopman had no authority to pledge the defendant’s credit, and that Mr. DALTON ought to have known that before he trusted them.

David LATTIMER, the secretary, said, in cross examination, that the members were not at all aware that their credit had been pledged to such an extent until the meeting took place, at which time they were also unaware of all outstanding accounts by the balance sheet of the society. He was not aware of any authority being given to the shopmen to pledge the credit of the members.

Mr. HOUGH: Have not these very men protested against a business being acrried on at all?

Witness: I don’t know.

His Honour: They can withdraw from it if they chose.

Mr. HOUGH: Not if it is a partnership, they cannot get out of it otherwise than by an Act of Parliament.

His Honour: Oh, yes, they can. They can withdraw their credit from it, or they can advertise and say they will have nothing more to do with it.

Mr. HOUGH said the debts of the society were growing instead of decreasing, and his clients were not participating in any way in the benefits, and they were anxious to close the concern altogether.

His Honour: Well, that would be the best way, for it is a nuisance. It strikes me that Messrs. DALTON ought to have their money some way or other.

Mr. HOUGH: I hope your Honour will not make an order in absence of any proof of these goods being got. It is quite clear that if a person trades with an illegal company, knowing that it is an illegal company, he cannot recover.

His Honour: I think you are entitled to an adjournment.

It was then agreed that the case should be adjourned till next court, in order that some person might prove the delivery of the goods, and to enable Mr. HOUGH to go into evidence.