The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-27 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' STRIKE.

proN4dil

office.

Several of the farm labourers at Newton, near
Sudlmry, Suffolk, were summoned before the magis-
trates at Bexford last week, on the charge of 'un-
lawfully hindering and molesting other labourers with
a view to coerce them to leave their work." The in-
formations were laid under 34 and 33 Viet., chap. 32,
entitled "An Act to amend the criminal law
relating to violence, threats, and intimidation,"
pegged last year. The master alleged that in one
of the cases he PAW the men at work in the fields
ploughing before breakfast, and shortly afterwards
he saw them riding their homes home, accompanied by
a crowd of about fifty persons. One of the clef enclants
was riling one of the horses. The complainant him-
self was not called. In the second came it appeared
from the evidence of the same witness that the com-
plainant had three men in his employ hoeing wheat,
when three of the defendants went to them, and,
although he warned them of the consequences,
they all went off together, and joined the la-
bourers who had struek. One of the complainants
was called, and described what took place, but said
that the defendants merely beckoned to him and
his mates when they were at work, and told them of
the strike. The men sail they were all agreeable, and
would strike too; and told their master they must join
the company. They then went away, carrying their tools
with them. The witness was much pressed, but re-
iterated that he was quite agree:dile to leave his work
when asked; he was in no bodily fear of the defendants,
and his tools hail not been interfered with by them, or
he hindered in the use of them.
Mr. Jones, for the prosecution, submitted that there
was a "watching and besetting" under the Act.
Mr. Mumford, for the defendants, denied that the
Act had any reference to the case at all, but was
paesed to prevent the outrages of trade unionists, and
proti et both master and man. It would be a mon-
strous stretch of the law if any conviction in the
!gement instance took place, as there was not the
shadow of a case.
The magistrates, after a lengthened consultation,
dismissed the cases on the ground that no coercion had
been proved.
Mr. Jones intimated that other evidence was pro-
curable, and that probably theee would be an appeal.
A large number of farmers were present during the
proceedings.
Nearly all the men have resumed work, some on
"piece" work, and others at an advance of a shilling a
week. The wages have been also slightly raised in
other parishes in the district.

IN RE THE INDIA AND LONDON
LIFE ASSURAIaCE COMPANY.

On this petition for winding up the above-named company,
one of the numerous companies amalgamated with the
European Assurance tioelety, some important questions arose
upon the difference in the principles applied to the " nota-
tion" of contracts with insurance companies according as
the persons concerned are policyhelders or annuitant. The
arguments were commenced in the Court of Chancery on
Friday, and concluded on Saturday afternoon.
The company was established in 1816, with a capi-
tal of £2.50,000, divided into shares of 4:50 each. In
October, 1854, Colonel Dyke purchased of the cons-
rimy an annuity of £270, payable during his life. In
1800 an ameement was entered into between the
India Company and therEuropean Assurance Society
for the tranakr of the business of the India Company
to the European, which was duly carried into effect,
but, as Colonel Dyke alleged, without his assent.
After such transfer he received his annuity fiom the
European half-yearly, down to April, 1671, when the
European became imolvent. Ile now asked that the
India Company might be wound up under the pro-
visions of the Companies Ants. The India Company
hod iv. longer any place of business or body of directors;
I vi application to the Court, Colonel Holland,
woo was chairman of the company at the time of the '
transfer of its liminess, was fived upon to mpresent it.
Mr. Clause, Q.C., and Mr. Graham Ila.stings au-
peered for the petitioner; and Mr. Pearson, Q.c., and
Mr. George Murray appeared for the liquidators of the
European Society.
Mr. H. M. Jackson, for Colonel Holland, as repre-
senting the India Company, contended—first, that
there was a novation, Colonel Dyke having, in fact,
assented to the transfer; and, secondly, that whether
he had assented or not was immaterial, as the India

Company had power by their deed of settlement to
make the transfer to any "approved" company; and
that, at all events, Colonel Dyke having stood by must
be bound by the doctrine of acquiescence.
.The Vice-Chancellor said,—This is one of those
painful cases which must necessarily operate very
hardly upon one of two innocent parties. It is a peti-
tion to wind up the India and London Company, and
is presented by Colonel Hart Dyke, who, in considers-
tionof k 4,000 paid by him in October, 1854, became the
purchaser of an annuity of 4..176 per annum, payable
for his whole life. This annuity was paid 13:- the India
Company down to 1860, in the early part of which
year that company found that they had lost one-tenth
of their capital. They then, iu accordance with the pro-
visions of their deed of settlement, took steps to wind
up the company, or bring its business to a close. There
were various ways in which they could do this, but
they &Muted the eriume of transferring the business Of
the company to the European Society. The case was
elaborately argued by Mr. Jackson for Celonel Hol-
land and his principal point was that under the 164th
clause of the deed of settlement the creditors of the
company were bound by any transfer of its buniness,
-iding such transfer were made to any "apps oved"
Now, I am clearly of opinion that the word
"approved" in that clause means approved by the
persons whose riffite against the company are to
be transferred. This is my construction of the
clause, and it was also the constiuction of the
company at the time of the transfer ; fur, instead
of holding Colonel Dyke bound to accept any office
they seleAed, they endeavoured to persuade him to
accept the European. llis Honour then referred to
the correspondence, and continued,—Colonel Dyke did
not in my opinion lose his right against the old company,
unless he did something to accept the new company.
In cases where Company A has transferred its business
to Company B, questions have often arisen whether a
person who pays premiums to Company B releases
Gimpany A, and it is now finally settled that by so
doing he loses his hold upon the old company ;but there
is a difference in principle between a policyholder and
an annuitant, and this distinction is recognized in the
importantease of the-Family Endowment Society (Potts'
case), where the question arose. In that case General
Potts paid one sum for his annuity, once for all ;
here Colonel Dyke did the same. In that
case General Potts had knowledge of the transfer,
and after it went to the office of the Albert to
receive the payments of his annuity, and in every act
after the tr inhier the Family Endowment Society Was
lost sight of. In the present case Colonel Dyke re
ceives his annuity from the European with knowledge
of the transfer. With that knowledge he was, in my
opinion, at liberty to assume that the old company
supplied the new company with the means of meet-
ing his annuity as their agents; and the real question
is whether he has done so much more than what
was done in Potts' case as to enable the Court to
say that he has relinquished his rights against the
Indian Company and adopted the European. On the
facts, I am bound to decide that he has not. The
India Company were at the time of the transfer most
desirons of terminating all their liabilities, but Colonel
Dyke refused to agree with them, and so determined
was he not to accept the new office that he threatened
to file a bill in Chancery against the out company. If
he had been induced to accept a new grant of the
annuity, or if he had taken an endorsement on his
grant, as in" Blood's case" (Equity L. R., 316), that
the European had agreed thenceforth to pay the
annuity, the case might have been different, and there
would, have been a novation. But this WM not done.
It was, however, argued that he stood by, and that no
doubt is a strong circumstance, but it also occurred in
Potts' case, and if acquiescence binds it would have
bound it in that case ; so I conclude that mere stand-
ing by is not enough. Suppose the European
had in 1865 refused to pay the annuity. I do
not see how Colonel Dyke could have enforced it
against them. It is said that an agreement was consti-
tuted by the subsequent correspondence ; but I am
unable to see how correspondence like that in this case,
which was a protest throughout, can take it out of the
authority of Potts' case. Beieg, therefore, unable to
treat this case- otherwise than as governed by that
authority, I am of opinion that Colonel Dyke has
establihhed the position of a creditor of the India Com-
pany, and is entitled to an order to wind it up.