The Express.
London, England, 1855-09-12 00:00:00

THE LUXEMBOURG RAILWAY TRIAL.

The Tribunal of Correctional Police of Brussels was
occupied on Thursday and Friday with a trial of some Inte-
rest to the English on the continent—namely, that of Mr.
John Admen, Bir William Magnify, and Mr. John Master-
man,directote of the Luxembourg Railway, on the chugs of
swindling. Mr. Ashwell alone appeared, the other two
gentlemen being tried by default. After Mr. Ashwell had,
in answer to questions, Meted his age to be 65, that he had
no profession, resided at London, and had been con-
demned in any court of law—the Substitute of the Prom-
four do Roi briefly explained that the charge was baud oa
the allegation that the three gentlemen bad appropriated
the greater part of 10,600 share., and of a sum of
35,750 fr., which bad been confided to them to
employ, in secret purposes, in promoting the in-
terests of the company, or to use the expression em-
ployed In procuring ixfluence in Belgium." In support
of the charge, it was stated that Mr. Ash well, for bie part,
had resolved 6,600 shares to distribute on behalf of the
company, bat that a long time after he was found to be in
possession of moat of the shares, and receiving the istaroat
on them. It was also alleged that the sum of 35,760 fr.
had been confided to him for the same purpose, but that be
could only account for the employment of 2,000 fr. of it.
As to Bic W. Magary and Mr. Rasterman, it was emitted
that they had severally received 2,000 shares on behalf of
the company, but, instead of ,distributing them, bad re-
tained them in their own hands, sad had received interest

on them. It was further alleged that the grant of the
shares and of the 35,750 fr., instead of being regularly
mentioned in the boi be, was reourded under the head
of " purchases of land," or of " engineering and
law expenses." Finally, it was stated that, in ob.
taiaing shares and money for secret purposes, the
defendants heel deceived the shareholders, inasmuch as no
secret negotiations were necessary, either to obteia the con-
cession of the railway from the government, or to procure
from it the g ee of a minimum of interest, which we.
subsequently accorded. Mr. Ashwell, in answer, declared
that he had distributed the greater part of the shares con-
tided to him in a
promote the interests of the company,and that the remainder
were kept in reserve to be distributed as occuion might
require. He could not, he said, without violating confi-
dence, state to whom the shares had been given, but smonget
the gentlemen who had received some for services ren-
dered were M. Drone', who had 1,000 ; M. Pierre, mem-
ber of the Chamber of Deputies, who had 100, and
M. Perrot, proprietor of the Ineependance Beige, who had
150. As to the charge that he bad received the interest on
the shares, he admitted that it had been paid to him, but
it WU only on behalf of the owners. With respect to the
35,750 f., be declared that he had employed the greater part
of the sum, and that the portion unemployed had been re-
turned to the cashier of the company. Ludy, he showed
that all that he had done bad been approved of by the direc-
tors, and sanctioned by the shareholders at their general
meeting ; also, that when complaints had been made by
some of the shareholder', a special committee was
appointed to examine into the whole matter, and
that it had approved of what had teen done. On
behalf of Mr. /Annoy and Mr. Masterman no defence
whatever was offered. In the course of the proceedings, it
was stated that what the defendants were accused of doing
was constantly done in England—namely, on the formation
of a railway company, to distribute shares or money amongst
the owners of land through which the line is to pass, sad to
persons who might be in a posi.ion is any way to promote
l its interests; and it was added, that the cost of such distri-
bution was always entered in the accounts as " parliamen-
tary expenses." 'the tribunal decided that, as the acts of
Mr. Alberta which were complained of took place more
than three years ego, they were covered by prescription, and
' that the complaint against Sir W. Magney and Mr. Master-
man was not sufficiently proved. It consequently &missed
t the compliant.