The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-12-12 00:00:00

A WARNING TO "MANAGING
DIRECTORS."

On Saturday, at the Wandsworth Police-court,
Sir Edward Lee appeared in answer to a summons at
the instance of Mr. Charles Kemp, charging him
with signing an order for goods on behalf of the
Albert Palace Association (Limited) and an order for
work and materials, wherein the name of the com-
pany was not mentioned as required by the provisions
of the Act of 1862. Mr. Beaky appeared for Sir
Edward Lee, and took a technical objection to the
summons, which he contended was bad, as it men-
tioned two offences. Mr. Paget said he could amend
the summons. Mr. Forrest, who supported the
summons, selected the charge for signing the order
for goods, the other being struck out. The oom.
olainant said he was a sign-board maker and
decorator, of Bishopsgate-without. In April he
called in reply to a letter from Mr. Preston, who
stated that the company required boards headed
"Albert Palace, Battersea - park." The order
was put in, and Mr. Preston was called to
prove the writing. He said he believed the signa-
ture to be the defendant's. He (Mr. Preston)
was employed at the palace. Sit Edward Lee
attended the meetings of the directors. Mr. Forrest
inquired whether Sir Edward Lee was the managing
director. The witness said he always understood that
Sir Edward Lee attended the meetings as manager.
In cross examination witness said Mr. Sharman, a
barrister, was the secretary of the company. He had
the control over all legal matters. The complainant
was recalled, and said he had a conversation with
the defendant, who told him that he was Managing
Director of the Albert Palace. Mr. Sharman told
him the same. Sir Robert Carden told him the
same. What he complained of was that he did not
know it was a Limited Company. Sir Robert Carden
financed the company, and witness thought he had
him to deal with. In cross-examination the com-
plainant said he signed a consent to receive deben-
tures for his debt without prejudice as to his rights
egainat other persons, and especially Sir Edward
Lee. The debentures had not been offered. By
the Magistrate : He had no idea that it
was a Limited Company until September after
he had supplied his goods. Mr. Besley, on
behalf of the defendant, said the order did not pro-
fess to have been given on behalf of the company.
His contention was that Sir Edward Lee had
rendered h;inself liable civilly, by signing the order,
and he could not shield himself under the Companies
Act. Mr. Paget was against Mr. Besley, and held
that it was an order from the Albert Palace. Mr.
Besley said he did not intend to call witnesses, and
asked the magistrate to impose a small fine. The
secretary was a barrister, and ought to have pro-
tected everyone. The defendant regretted that he
was not properly advised. Mr. Paget thought there
ought to be a substantial fine, as he looked upon the
case as one more for the protection of the public
than with regard to an individual. lie inflicted the
full penalty of £5O, and refused to apportion any
part of it to the complainant as he had .his civil
remedy. Mr. Besley gave notice of appeal.