The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

TES LONDON AND NORTHERN BANK.

SINGULAR CHARGE AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER.

Yesterday Mr. Frederick Symons, a wine and
spirit merchant, of 64, Lower Thameedrest, appeared
before Mr. Aldermen Stone, who was sitting for the Lord
Mayor, in =ewer to a summons taken out at the instance
of Mr. Ralph Walters, one of the directors of the London
and Northern Beak, charging him with having threatened
to publish • certain matter or thing touching the oomplsin-
eat and others of the directors of the said bank, with
intent to extort money from the directors, contrary to the
statute Sand 7 Vie., cap. 96, sec. 3.
Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Mr. Turner, solicitor, ap-
peared to support the complaint, and Mr. Lewis, jun., ap-
peared for the defendant.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed by the directors of
the London and Northern Bank to support • summons
against Mr. Frederick Symons for having threatened to
publish a certain matter concerning them with intent to ex•
tort money from them. The London and Northern Bank
was formed in the early part cf 1862, having been promoted
by two gentlemen who had long since ceased to have any-
thing to do with it. The bank was opened in July by the
director., and the promoters, who had themselves gone to
• great deal of trouble and expense, were paid • sum of
10,0004 The capital subscribed for was 500,0001., and
169,0001. was paid up, and the beak darted with every
prospect of success, which was abundantly carried out from
that time until September in the present year, and the
bank, which had a paid up capital of 119,0001., increased to
140,0001, by • subsequent all, made at the rate of 20,0001.
• year profit. In September considerable losses were sus-
tained. The Leeds Bank failed, and the failure of some of
the customers of the bank took place at the same
time, and the result was that the bank hat a con-
siderable sum, which was, however, estimated at the very
highest at 33,0001., which amount it was very probable
would be considerably lessened by dividends from the edited'
of those who had failed. The defendant, Mr. Symons, was
a shareholder to • considerable amount, and got frightened
when this loss was made known, and wished to realise the
shares which be held in the bask ; but, instead of selling
them in the market, and submitting to • fair discount—the
shares having fallen about 5/. per sham—he went to the
directors and said he wanted them to take his shares off his
hands at par. This they could not do, the sherd being at
51. discount in the market. Defendant said they must do
so, and if they did not he was going to publish a certain
document, at the same time taking from he pocket what
appeared to be a circular, saying that the directors bad
plenty of money, and it would be au awkward thing for
them if they did not. The paper, which it appeared
was the draft of • circular to call • meeting
of the shareholders of the bank, was afterwards
printed. Mr. Metcalfe said the circulationtof the paper
was something that was detrimental to the directors, and
contained matter that they would have to explain, and which
the defendant threatened to publish if they did not take
his shares. He said the defendant a • shareholder would
have • perfect right to issue a circular to cell • meeting of
shareholders, and might make statements which, although
false, be might believe to be true, without any serious con-
sequences ; but at the same time he had no right to say to
the directors—" If you do not pay me my money I will
publish • certain thing, or make certain statements, which
will sot only damage your characters u directors, but
will damage the bank." The meeting of shareholders was
not called, and he should submit that there never was any
intention of calling it ; but the thing was Haunted about
merely for the purpose of inducing the directors to give the
defendant the money for his shares. The next proceeding
on the part of the &thorium was to file • bill in
Chancery, to which he thought it nscaseary to draw
attention. The defendant no doubt had also a right
to file • bill in Chancery, but at the same time be had no
right to threaten to extort money, and then file the bill
because he could not get it, and make • series of false state-
Ciente ; and nothing, he said, ceuld be more false than some
of the statemente which the defendant had made in the
bill, and sworn to es true in his belief.
Mr. Lewis said the bill could not be tried. There was
SO
injunction obtained on it, against which not one of the
directors had put in an affidavit to contradict the matters
contained in it.

Mr. Metcalfe went on to say eat the bill purported to be
on behalf of the defendant and other shareholders ; but be
should be in a position to show that the defendant offered
to drop it if the mooey wu paid to him, and to conceal it
from the other shareholders. Mr. Metcalfe then drew at.
tentiou to the contents of the bill, and read several cleans,
the tint of which stated that at a meeting on July 20.
1664, as well as before and subsequently, every endeavour
was made to keep from the shareholders the know-
ledge of the large and serious losses which had occurred,
and to lead them to believe that the company was progres-
sing most favourably and making considerable profits, and
it was proposed that the remaining 4,000 shares should be
harmed at • premium of 21. per share, giving the share-
holders and customers a preference, and until very lately
they bad succeeded and caused the shares of the bank to
attain a considerable price, and the shareholders to agree to
the report presented to lb. meeting. Mr. Metcalfe aid
there was not the slightest foundation for suck • statement.
There was no loss at that time, nor did there appear to be
any until the sth September. In the next clause it was stated
that the plaintiff had, however, since such meeting and
payment of dividends, and within only the last few weeks.
discovered not only there were no profile or fund out of
which any dividend ought to have been paid, but that great
parte( thecalled-upcapital bad been loot, and that the amount
which, up to the present time, had been lost exceeded
three-fourths of such called-up capital, and in fact amounted
to more than 100,0001., so that there was really lees than
26,01104 for the purpose of carrying on the business ; the
number of shares issued and taken up since the meeting
having been very few. Mr. Metcalfe said he should be in •
position to show that the only loss the bank had sustained
wsa the 33,0001. he had already alluded to, and that the
bank had at the time 30,000/. ash in hand, besides 160,0004
worth of good trade bills, and that the losses were declared
to the shareholders at the meeting. On the 73rd September 1
a call of Si. • share was made, which could have been called II
five months before, but it was not wanted, inasmuch as the
beak was making large profits ; and after that as amalga-
mation with the Slidland Bank was proposed, and Mr.
Symons and another gentleman were the only
ones opposed to it. There was • general meeting
held, and all the shareholders bat 31r. Sy-
mons pawed • vote of confidence in the duectors.
The shares being at a discount was partly and chiefly through
Mr. Symons being so ill-advised as to make such • stir
in the matter. If be had not pursued such • course he
would have meet likely been able to sell his shares at •
premium. When defendant found that • meeting of share-
holders had been called by the directors, he took the
Srproceedings in the Court of Chancery, and thought, no
ociTtldthat they would be nauseated, and that the bill
would remain on the file and damage the bank, and the di-
rectors would be glad to comply with his demand. Mr.
Metcalfe thou alluded to another clause, in which it was
stated that the plaintiff had issued application to be made
to the London and Northern Bank for information in re.
spelt to the amalgamation, but all information had been
refused, and he was unable to inseam the particulars of
such proposed amalgamation. As regarded- that clause,
Sir. Metcalfe said Mr. Symons had applied to Mr. Turner,
the manager of the bank, for information, and he gave him
all he could, but there were some matters which could not be
made public. A meeting of the shareholders was called,
and the proposition was duly submitted to them. In another
clause the plaintiff bad alluded to a loss which he alleged
the directors had sustained of upwards of 30,0001. by
Messrs. Emmanuel and 13ullman, late of id, Leadenhall-
street, in the City, stating. that they had received notice
from Dr. Cook, a friend of the plaintiff's. and Mr. Chatte-
ris, the accountant of the London and Northern Bank, not
to trust them, and the manager of the bank had said he had
not, nor would not, trust them. Mr. Metcalfe said Messrs.
Emmanuel and Bullroau had been trusted certainly more
than they ought to have been, but they stood very high, and
were trusted by many others, and they felled, but the
loss sustained by their failure was included in the 33,000/.,
as well as losses by other customers who had been
I mentioned in soother clause, named Storm and
I Croekey. In the next clause the plaintiff alleeed
' that the large sums so lost had for some. time
Lrevaented the
proper and
lcoupanty;sm.businXldbanegdirecto. on
hd
raised funds to enable them to carry on the business by
issuing bills of exchange, giving their acceptances as direc-
tors to • very large amount, upwards of 30,000/. of which
had been discounted by brokers and others, and • number
of illicit bills and acceptances ware still not yet matured
and outstanding. This, Mr. Metcalfe said, was utterly and
entirely false, and there was not the slightest pretence for
saying that the directors had ever issued bills as alleged,
and it was put in by Mr. Symons with the view of com-
helling the directors to pay him his money, which he found
could not get in any other way. In the following clause
it was stated that the hank had no ready money to carry
on their litigious, and in fact had no funds for such
purpose other than what they could get fu from the
call of 5/. per share, and by issuing bills of exchange
hearing the bank's acceptance. Be had already stated
there was 30,0004 cash in band besides • large amount in
good trade bills, and therefore that clause was alike untrue.
In the next clause it was stated that the directors perfectly
I well knew that the manager, Mr. Turner, was totally unfit
for the position. end that be had not been employed et the
London and Westminster for ten years, but had been
engaged
failed,3b fanlehadcnoei twitVers *ofogthape Unityn Bahait
manager at their bead offices in London and with a view of
deceiving the shareholders had caused Lis Dame to be pub.
holy advertised as late of the London and Westminster
Bank, and had wilfully concealed the fact of his having
been one of the chief officers of the tioity Bank, which bad
se disastrously failed. Mr. Metcalfe said Mr. Turner had
been for 21 years in the London and Westminster Beak,
and the directors received from that beak the highest Ugh-
rupiah as to his character and capabilities. In another
clause it was alleged that the directors bad a per-
sonal interest in carrying on the Dunne of the hank and
attempting to show the profits were large, although they
knew to the contrary ; for by a clause in the articles of
aesociation it was provided that the directors were arum-
ally to divide amenspit them for their services a sum of
3,0001 and that if they declared a dividend of per cut.
and not
exceeding 8, they were to retain amongst them-
selves 1,0001.. and if b and not exceeding 10 an addi-
tional sum of 2,0001., and 1,0001. additional oo every 2
per cent. beyond 10 per cent. Thia clans* Mr. Met-
calfe said was copied from the clause in the articles of
sours other bank, mud was opposed by the directors at •
general meeting and struck out of the article.. In moths

clause the plaintiff stated that the dividend which had been
reoommecded to be paid was paid out of the paid-up capital
of the beak and not out of the profits, the directors well
knowing there were no profits, in coosequenos of the very
serious loss which occurred, as bad been before mentioned.
There were other clauses, which Mr. Metcalfe said were
equally false, aed which he said he should submit was
the matter which the defendant threatened to publish.
He then called Mr. Ralph Walters, who mid he lived
in Eaton-square, and had property in Newcastle. He
was a magistrate in the county of Middlesex, and
was nominally a member of the bar. He was one
of the directors of the Loudon and Northern Bank,
and Mr. Emanuel Briggs, Mr. Thomas Collins, Mr.
Robert Bryn Hay, Mr. 'vie Mackay, Mr. Charles Popple-
ton, Mr. Wm. Dalhouse Starling, and Mr. Basil T. Wood,
were also directors. Most of those whose names were men-
tioned had been directors from the first. At the first meet-
ing of the bank there was a resolution pawed to do away
with dames 79, enabling the directors to divide a sum of
money between them. It was expunged upon the motion
of the directors, and as the articles then stood the directors
bad not power to divide a fraction.

Mr. Lewia suggested that it might not have been ex-
punged by datant's knowledge.

Witness continued—lie could not tall the exact date ;
bat it was at the first general meeting. The bank wee
opened in 1862, and the general meeting was held within
the year.
Mr. Alderman Stone—And there would be a minute in
the book of that erasure?
Witness had no doubt of it.
_ _

Examination continued—The articles were published
without that clause. The directors had not divided
' amongst them a single shilling, directly or indirectly. They
bad taken nothing for salary or anything else. Up to Sept.
last he had no doubt the bank wee in • flourishing condition,
and at the present time he had no doubt that the bank was
perfectly solvent. The sum of 10,0001. was paid to the
original promoters, Mr. Clench, and Mr. Kintrea„ who had
expecded • large sum of money. It was paid to them by
the Articles of association, and except that sum no other had
been paid to any one in way of gift or remuneration. In the
articles issued after the meeting, there wan • clause which
stipulated that the directors were to take nothing ezoept
what the shareholders might vote from time to
time. Mr. Symons was • large shareholder. Some
time in October he went to him at the bank. Witness
thought it was about the middle. He did not know the
defendant before then, but in consequence of what a clerk
told him he spoke to Mr. Symons. He first spoke about
several things, and then said that he had been a share-
holder in another bank, and he took the course of calling •
meeting of the shareholders at the London Tavern, and he
would do the same with this bank unless his shares were
taken at per. Witness said any such meeting would be
extremely damaging to Mr. Symons' own property as well
as to the bank generally, to which Mr. Symons replied that
he knew the directors had plenty of money and must take
the abates off his basis, or he would call the meeting.
Defendant then put his hind in his pocket and pulled out a
paper, which he said was • draft of • circular to call the
meeting. The draft, be rid, was to be printed and circu-
lated amongst the shareholders. Witness said he would be
no party to any compromise in the matter, defendant must
take him own course. Witness did not have the paper in
his hand. Defendant read a few lines of it. It was not a
printed paper. (Two letters were shown to the witness, but
he could not say which of the two it was.) This was the
only time that be recollected seeing Mr. Symons upon the
matter referred to.

On being cross-examined the witness said, bills before they
were discounted were not taken before him or any of the
directors to his knowledge. He was not aware that any
business was being done in Loudon in discounting bills, ex-
cept occasionally. He found that the manager had dis-
counted very considerably, but he was not aware of it at the
time. He had never seen any exact amount, and he did not
know what the amount was. He had sot looked into the
books of the bank slaw the bill had been filed in Chancery
to see the ►mount of discount in London. He had asked the
accountant, but be had not beard from him wh►t the amount
was.

Mr. Lewis to witness—Did the manager discount bills in
London contrary to your directions?
Witness said hie sanction was not asked. He frequently
sew the manager, but he did not tell him he was
discounting in London. He did not know bow much
the manager had discounted for Messrs. Emmanuel
and Builman. He formed has opinion of the solvency of
the bank by the statement of the accountant. He had
not seen any statement which showed the losses at Leeds.
He could not tell how much Messrs. Emmanuel and Hallman
owed. When be was charged in the bill with neglect he
did not go to the books to see what they owed. Emmanuel
and Hultman were bankrupts at present. The debt was not
proved. The accounts were not made up. No doubt the
books would show, but he did not know how much they
owed. He understood it was about 20,000/. He bad never
referred to the books, but he understood it was that amount.
He did not understand it was 26,0001. He could not swear
it was cot that amount. He had examined the ledger as to
certain arta, but not that particular one. He declined to
name any particular act. He did not know how much there
was owing to the bank in London in bad bills; but he
nodentood the total losses must be covered by the 30,0001.
without considering any dividend which might be received.
That included the losses at Leeds. He could not my the
amount of the bank's acceptances at that moment. He
did not know that they were upwards of 2U0,001N. He pre-
sumed the business could not be caned on without accept-
ancies. He could not say to what the bank's acceptances
amounted. There was a director named Dentoo,who retired in
the early parted the present year. He bad never heard that
be had given acceptances. There wee • customer of the
bank at Leeds named Loathe, by whom there was • loss.
He did not know that Mr. Denton bad acceptances of the
bank to a large amount. He did not know what Mr. Den-
ton owed. He heard of any apprehension for the
London and Northern Bank. He was present at the meet-
, log when the dividend was declared. At that meeting the
directors hued &hares at 21. premium. He did not know
how long after that meeting the shares were at a discount,
,as he was from town. In the middle of September, on his
return from the country, they were at 51. discount, with •
call of 51. to pay. He spoke to Mr. Tamer. the inamigst,
about it, sod he then interned him of the loss the bank had
sustained. He was very much surprised to find they were
discounting.
Mr. Lewis—So were we. Have you the mine confidence
in the manager which you had?
Witness said in one sense be certainly had not. He
was far too easy ; people had imposed upon his good
nature. He understood that • person named Sterne
hid transactions with Mr. Terry, and it was stated at
the last meeting that be owed the sum of 3,0001. un-
secured. He did not know that Mr. Sterne was indebted to
either the Unity or the Loodou and Middlesex, which had
failed, and had no knowledge that he was • customer at
either bank. He bed stated that Mr. Turner, the manager,
was in the London and Middleesx, and be had heard that
be was in the Unity Bank. He had no knowledge how long
he had been at the Unity. He was aot a pony publishing
to the shareholders that Mr. Tamer was lateof the London
and Westminster. He was not one who voted the 10,00(&
to the promoters. He was first aware that earn had been
voted very early after the commencement of the bank. He
did not see bow much of the 10,111.01. was outlay. He asked
to see, and it was generally given. It was laid upon the
table at moot the meetings, but he did not know who laid
It before them. The shareholders, he understood, went
with the full knowledge of the fact. Mr. Syinous was not
a shareholder at that time, bat be would have • better
chance of knowing than the others. The sum was included
in the preliminary expenses. The preliminary expenses were
not put down as assets. They were put down in the balaace-
sheet as a payment. It did not appear by the balance
what was doe on the bank's accept&noce. There was 41,0001.
on outstanding liabilties. He did not know they were ac-
ceptaaces. He supposed It was the item of drafts on which
the bank were to receive payment of the customers. He
did not know that it was for acceptances of the bank given
to customers. Hs did not understand that it was
• liability on which the bank had no security.
He did not know how much the Leeds bank,
which bad failed, held in their acceptances. lie was not
aware they held soy. The bank had branches at Leeds,
Huddersfield, Sheffield, and Newcastle. The directors held
their meetings at the offices in Loodoo. He had never at-
tended • meeting at any of the branches. The branches were
under the supenntesdeoce of the managers. There was
no board to regulate the management. The directors had
reports sent up every week. The managers of the branches
oughtndon. not to discount bills without the mortice' of the board
in:Lo

Mr. Leiria—Why did you not coon to this court and
make the complaint on the 15th October!
Witness said because neosewity did not seem to require it.
He did not know the day he first saw the bill in chancery.
He knew there was notice of motion for an injunction to
restrain an amalgamation. He gave the iostructiose for
his own answer. lie did not swear any affidavit. He
wrote down the instructions for that purpose. He did not
make the complaint because the iojunction wen made. The
bill charged him with neglect, and wee to snake him per.
smelly liable. It was first proposed to amalgamate with the
Midland Bank within the last month. He was not aware
that they were restrained by Mr. Symons from amalga-
mating. The shareholders bad not pledged them not to
amalgamate. The terms proposed were thattheSlidlsod Com-
pany were to give them 60/. shares for the lag. shame of the
London and Northern, and they were indebted to Mr.
Symons for coming down to that. That was the proposi-
tion made by the Midland Bask.
Mr. Lewis—Up to that time had Mr. Symons taken any
legal steps against the bank!
Witness said he was not aware that he had. The shares
had gone down previous to Mr. Symons going to the bank.
He did not attribute that fall to the defendant. Heattributed
the subsequent fall to the defendant's proceedings. He did
not know anyone to whom the defendant had communi-
cated him intention. Wittman was at the Leeds meeting on
Monday, the 14th instant, which was called to carry out the
amalgamation. Mr. Symons was there. The chairman, in
opening the meeting, said • ottomans bed begs greeted
against the defendant for attempting to extort money. The
letter produced (one of the two alluded to before)_ appeared
to be like theme defendant produced when be called at the
bank. The titter was dated Oct. 14, 1864, and signed by Mr.
Symms, and was as follows :—`• Sir, 1 beg to request your
attendsoce at a meeting to be held at the Loudon Tavern
on Monday, the 23rd Jost., for the parpoos of oonsidoring
the present position of the London sad Northers Bank. I
am • bolder of 100 *hares, end think it most de-
sirable that we shoeld meet prior to paying the call last made."
He did sot recollect whether the defendant asked him whs•
they the call of 51. bad bees made to pay the losses of the
bask or to seised the bedews of the beak. Ho bad no

recollection of defendant's speaking of the rumoured losses
the bank had had to a large amount. He did not say that
a friend of his, Dr. Cook, and Mr. Chateria, the accountant,
had cautioned their manager against Mr. Stern and Etna-
noel and Millman. The defendant referred to the down-
ward movement of the shares. That was the ground on
which be was to issue the circular. He expressed his die.
malefaction of the general management of the bank but not
of the directors.

Mr. Lewis—Did nothe say before he paid hist:alibi would
all a meeting of shareholders, and know how the bank
stood, and that be would make the directors liable for every
shilling the shares had cost him?
Witness s►id, not that be was aware of. The defendant
did not read the whole of the letter, what he read was to
the effect that he was going to call a meeting. Defendant
did not read the whole of the letter. Witness only gathered
he intended to all a meeting of shareholders, end when be
pointed out the damage it would do, defendant said he
must take his shares at par.
Mr. Lewis:Will you sweet that he did not say that he
would make the directors liable for every shilling he had
pail for his shares ?
Witness said he would. He did not recollect that de-
fendant asked what amount of losses the bank had sus-
tamed. He had no doubt he told him he was not in a posi-
tion to tell him. A dividend was declared on 30th June,
1864. The balance was prepared by the three auditors of
the bank, and is signed by them. Witness did not recollect
what the p.'t was ,up to that time. He thought it was
about 4,0 M.
Mr. Lewis—Do you not know that you had sustained a
loss of 15,000/. by Messrs. Emanuel and Hallman at th►t
time?
Witness said the lass wee not sustained at that time. He
did not believe any of the bills were dishonoured at that
time. He did not think it likely that the 4,0004 profit was
formed partly from the interest on the bills by which the
bank bad sustained the loss. Witness did not know that
Mr. Cook and Mr. Ch►teris, before the 30th June
cautioned the managers with respect to debts of Mr. Stone
and Messrs. Emanuel and Sunman.
Re-examined by Mr. Metcalfe—He had not heard that
Mr. Cook had applied for accommodation on bills of Mr.
, ,

Symons and was refused.
Mr. Lewis said he was instructed that that was quite
untrue. His client was well•known to be a man of exten-
sive property.
Witasses re-examination continued—An accountant bad
been employed to go through the accounts. He had re-
served km answers to the charges in the bill by the advice
of his solicitor. The day for the cross-examination of the
defendant was fixed. He thought that Dr. Cook and
another gentleman were present at thetime defendant made
his threats.

Lewis said that Dr. Cook was the gentleman who had
cautioned Mr. Symons.
Witness, in answer to Mr. Metcalfe, said the chairman at
the meeting at Leeds informed the shareholders that a bill
had been filed charging the directors with negligence, and
that a summons had been taken out against Mr. Symons for
attempting to extort money. The feeling of the share-
holders was, with toe exception of Mr. Symons and another
gentleman, cosi of confidence in the directors, and strong
against the defendant. . _

"John Peacock Turner said he was manager at the London
and Northern Bank, and prior to occupying that position
was twenty-one years in the London and Westminster. He
was cashier in the Unity Bank for four years, and was after
that manager to • branch bank of the London and Mid-
dlesex. He had been manager to the Loudon and Northern
Bank since the formation in 1862. The loss of the bank
was, in his opinion, about 20,00 W. or 30,0001., and the bank
was, at the present time, quite solvent, and op to Septem-
ber was making large profits He knew Mr. Symons. He
had seen him at the bank several times. He went
immcdi-
atsly after the losses were discovered to have some
information respecting the losses. Witness could not
give him any infarnation, and he demanded to
see the books, which witness would not allow with-
out an order from the board..4Defendant said that anises he
had his shares taken off his hands at par be would bring
down that tank the same as he had another bank, and be
intended to cell a meeting immediately. Witness told
him he could not take Lis shares at par ; but if he beard of
any one wishing to purchase he would let him know. He
did hear of some one wishing to purchase fifty shares at 5/.
discount, and told the defendant, but be said, "No, he
must take his shares at ter." On another occasion de.
fendant said witness must give him a cheque for 1,0001.. as
he had then a circular prepared and in Me pocket to call a
meeting, and he must have I,OOW, and he would give a
month for remainder. He told defendant he would see
what he could do, and communicate with him by 5 o'clock.
He mentioned the matter to some of the directors, who
would not allow him to pay any money, and he did not pay
it. Dr. Cook went with the defendant on some occuiou,
and was present at some of the iatOrTillWl, and heard what
was said. Witness had refused to discount foe Dr. Cook
Mr. Symons' aoceptance for 1,5001. That was in July.
After the bill was filed it was taken to him by Mr. Lewis.
Witness had seen the circular produced before, not in the
defendant's hands. .

This wee the cue on the part of the complainant.
Mr. Alderman Stone said its threat must be positive and
defined, not inferred, as it appeared to him it was in this
case, and he did not think there was sufficient in the evi-
dence to establish the threat within the acid parliament.
Mr. Metcalfe contended that he had threatened to issue
the circular with intent to extort the money.
Some sliglit discussion ensued. Mr. Metcalfe contended
that the threat to publish anything touching another, with
a view to obtain money, came within the meaning of the
act equally as if the matter contained in it were libel.
Mr. Alderman Stone said no doubt the statute was in-
tended to punish where an attempt was made to extort
money, but he did not think that this case came within the
term to extort money ; and, moreover, it would be wrong
in him, while the snit was pending in the Court of Chancery
charging the directors with certain things, to put that aside
by deciding upon a summons in that court, and he less not
of opinion that the matter published MD of such a character
as came within the meaning of the statute, and he should
therefore dismiss the summons.
Summons diamiseed accordingly.
The case occupied nearly five Man.

THE PRIMROBZ-HILL SHAKESPEARE MEMORIAL.—
At the usual weekly meeting of the executive, held on
Wednesday, at St. John's-gate, ClerkenwelL Mr. Richard
Moore in the chair, the following reports were made
The chairman reported that the 000ncil of the Amalgamated
Engines had expressed • willingness to include some notice
of the movement in their next quarterly report to the
emaciated branches throughout the United Kingdom and
the colonies, and the council would further supplement
such notice by commendatory observations of Omit own.
Mr. G. L. Banks reported • letter received from Messrs.
Falconer and Chatherton, of Drury-lane Theatre, to the
effect that every person engaged upon or about that este-
bliahment—incladiog the company, orchestra, *mai° artists,
ballet, stage carpenters, property-men, supernumeraries,
money and check-takers, box-keepers, cleaners, bill-posters,
he., in all 1,198 person—had left subscriptions in the
treasury on behalf of the Shakespeare Memorial Fund. Mr.
Alfred Sbakspeare reported the result of an interview with
the committee of the Society of Compositors which was of
• most favourable character. Mr. Jahn Behibride re-
ported the formation of • committee in aid, is the pariah of
Winston. Similar committees were in mums of formation
other districts. Mr. W. R. Cromer reported that the
experiment of employing menthen of the Corps of Commis.
sionairee as collectors had been most successful, and it was
proposed to take advantage of the services of that body to
the fullest erteot possible. Several new members having
been added to the honorary council and the general com-
mittee, mad other important business transacted, the meeting
broke up.
GOVERNMENT POWDER MAGAziNzs.—As one of
the result, of the recent catastrophe at Erith, • rigid inves-
tigation has been made as to the regulations in force at the
numerous floating and other powder magazines belonging to
the government, and, situated on and near the Thecae', at
Woolwich and its vicipity. Colonel Boxer, 8.A., superin-
tendent of the Royal Laboratories, hie bees in frequent
oommunication with the authorities at the War Department
on the subject, and the regulations heretofore carried out,
some of which were of a highly objectioaable nature, have
been so amended as to ensure more safety to life and pro-
perty. The keepers of floating powder magazines, who in
some came resided on board with their wives and families
(thus involving the necessity of having fires), will in future
reside on shore, and • number of additional men have been
selected, three of whom will be placed en each magazine
for night duty only, and the making of fires on board for
the purpose of cooking, Lac-, has been abolished, acid is
strictly prohibited. Other measures of • precautionary
nature are about to be carried out.

SHOCKING ACCIDENT AT TUZ ROYAL ARSENAL.
Yesterday afternoon a serious accident occurred to Richard
May, a workman employed at the gun factories department
of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. It appears that Slay was
engaged with other men at oar of the factories in the Dial-
square, where a large casting was in proems of being turned
out. For this purpose an immense ladle, which is worked
by a crank, is used, and MN at the time of the accident filled
with about three tone of molten metal. By some means the
handle of the ladle became disarranged, and it overturned,
pouring a quantity of its contents over the legs awl feet of
the unfortunate man, who suffered the most atcrticiatiag
agony, and was immediately removed on a stretcher to the
infirmary of the establishment, where he now retrials'
under the care of Drs. Briscoe and CuUnm. Another may
who was standing near May at the time, was much scalded,
but after being attended to at the infirmary was enabled
to return to his home.

PROPORZD RAILWAY UNDER nil RIV=E MUIJSI7.
It is intended to apply to parliameot in the ooming session for
powers to be vested io the Great Waiters. London and
North Western, and other companies, to form a new nom.
pony for the purpose of connecting Liverpool and Birken-
head by rail. The project is to carry a lice up the Cheshas
bank, from Birkenhead to Bebbiogtoo, thence by a tunnel
under the Money to Toxteth Park, which is the south end
of the borough of Liverpool. It is intended to ooenect this
line with the Chester and Birkenhead Railway on the one
band, and with the Liverpool Central line (when the latter
is completed) on the other ; and also to extend it into t►e
higher tarts of the borough of Liverpool.
ADMIRALTY, Nov. 16. —APPOINTYINTS. —Sub-
Lieutenant 0. Johnston,, to the Delearie. Midshipman 0.
H. H. Beotley, to the Victoria.
IloastmAx's Tea to choice and strong, moderate
In price and wholesome to we. There advantages have mewed
for this tea a general preference. It Is sold la packets by Mee
agnate.—LAdverttsemenCJ