The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-14 00:00:00

him in the highest degree that the parties had arrived at
;he result they had, an arrangement which would be bene•
tlial both to shareholders and creditors. But they
could not ultimately carry that arrangement into
rua etfe:t without thu authority of the court.
In referring it to the Master he should give
dine•ioos for t'm Master to reaard the portico' ir ar-
ran,reuiants which had been carried on up to the present
time, and the complete execution of which would ho so
beneficial to sll parties, making the usual order for wind-
ing-up in other respects But, in doing this, it would cer-
tainly not be with any intention to controul the authority
of the Muter. It would be imporaiblo to say that the
Master should not inquire into the fact, whether the per-
sons were creditors or to what ex cut, or whether they
were contributories. lie should certainly not refer it to
the District Court of Bankruptcy, or to the County Court
edge ; inasmuch as it was desirable that the matter should
referred to an experienced officer, for the purpose of as-
certaining whether he would be able to carry into effect
the Winding-up Act, with the special directions which he
had mentioned.
A conversation then took place as to the costs and ulti-
mately,
Phi Muter of the Rolls directed that the costs of all the
petitioners should be paid out of the estate.

Boma Irsen-Causextusa
OMAND TRVNIE oft STAFFORD AND CETEUDOROVOR
RAILWAY COMPANY T. Dumas..
In this case the bill had been originally filed by a person '
of the name of Warren, against the managing directors of
this railway; but the ease having gone before a Master in
Chancery, under the Winding-up Acts, the suit was now
being prosecuted by the oltieial manager in the name of the
company, by direction of the Muter.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Collier appeared for the plaintiff, and
front the statement made in opening the ease, it appeared
that the object of the suit was to make the defendants liable
for breaches of trust in respect of the funds committed to
their care, WI the governing and managing body of the com-
pany. The company was formed in 181.5, with a capital of
One million, for the purpose of making a railway from Stafford
to Peterborough; was provisionally registered on the 28th
August, and the subscribers' agreement and parliamentary
contract had been duly signed. The original plaintiff had
subscribed for 40 shares, and had paid the deposit of two
guineas per share. The defendants were thirteen in num-
ber, who had all executed the agreement. 17,445 shares
had been issued, and 36,6311. 12s. bad been paid as the
deposit on them. A bill was introduced and read a second
time by the Rouse of Commons, but it proceeded no further
in consequence of a resolution of the house requiring that
the bill should in every case be approved by three-fifths of
the holders of scrip. In consequence of this a resolution
was published by the directors to the effect that one guinea,
part of the deposit which had been paid, would be at once
returned, and the residue of the money in band would be di-
vided as soon as the liabilities of the company had been ascer-
tained and discharged. It appeared that the forms for the scrip
hatl,as is loyally the cue, been printed and bound up in books
ready for signature ; and before it was issued, it wu pro-
vided that it should be signed by the secretary and two
directors. slut it had been discovered that a whole book
of spurious scrip had been issued, and the deposit had been
returned on this spurious scrip, which was the first charge
of fraud against the directors. The second charge was the
paymeut of a sum of 4771. out of the funds of the company,
to purchase their own shares in the market, or in other
words to " rig " the market; the shares thus bought were
kept by the secretary, and when the deposit was returned
he received 2101. in respect of them, and a further sum of
&W. as a further dividend thereon.
The learned counsel had not concluded his opening ad-
drew when the court rose, and the further hearing war ad-
journed till Thursday.

BOOT/ Vice-CHANCTI.LOI P•izn.
The court was occupied in bearing Mr. Rowell, Mr.
Willeock, and Mr. Frederick T. White, for the defendant
in the cause of " King (ltd ) T. Savery," and, it being
after three o'clock, Mr. Bacon reserved has reply until after
the short causes and claims to-morrow.

Bayou Trcuseasscatioa is B. lirrommar.
The court was occupied the whole day in hearing peti-
tions, for the most part unopposed, of no public interod.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Yeenten.ty.
ammo iv 1.14: fcct—limisa Liao Cruntni, Ms. Jt "mot PArrsecor.

LLN. JesTlCßON.Lareus, Amy LlA:JuniesTiWirrsAm.
En PARTS ELIT AND BODNAN.—APPLICATION TO
STIHILS AN ATTORNIT OPP THL ROLL AND CONXIT AN
VNHVALIPIED PER4oN POR PRAcTIIHNO.
Mr. Prentice applied for • rule calling on Thomas Vevey
and Thomas Rodman to show cause why the former should
not be struck off the roll of attorneys of this court, and
why the latter should not be committed to prison for con-
tempt of court. It appeared that an action hail been
brought against a person called Frederick George Orchard
upon a bill of exchange, and for goods sold and delivered.
Orchard went to Rodman, who stated that he was a clerk
to a person called Jones, and that Vesey authorised him to
practise in his name, by which he was enabled to make
four or fir.: hundred a year. Postman took instructions to
defend the action tram Mr. Orchard (who was • minor),
and his uncle, who sated as his guardian. The detente
was infancy, and Beim pleaded it to the bill of exchange,
but not in ezinirnir to the const for goods sold
and delivered. The ear was tried at the Guildford assizes,
and Badman, be gmable to leave his employer's service,
induced Tem Se Mind on his behalf, giving him 41.,
2.1. 4s. 6d. to pay asemeele fees, and 21. for kis own asperses.
Ms verdict went the defendant, In cameramen of
tbe omiasian to Infancy to tft• seem& emat in the
declaration; ewer the mike bed keen tried, Vag
remarked "beim hr seeds • aim meet OAK" and be
added that be led merles whatever M do with the matter,
but that it was mthely Bodmen's dethemuently
Orchard brought am melon against Ifesey for gross
pence, and, judgment hieing been snowed to go by default,
the damages were itnintaii as 1411. 19s. 3d. It turned out,
however, that Visit leas insolvent, sad was unable to pay
auy portion oldie menet Verses afterwards was advised
to apply to Ni Miff le amok lsisa to prison be 13
mouths for seta/ an emptellied pawn. (Ala ugk)
By the 6 and 7 VIM, ear. 73, see. 32, it wee enacted that ff
an attorney or mallet permitted his name, in any way, to
be made used bg en ummeilled penes he prat be
should be stave Wilke ea, lesi be ever ediemenei be dir
qualified to prudes es as etermay, sad then the unquali-
fied pe.son who bed es seed hie awe might be semmitted
to prison for say Ma not exec./ft Wen lailedis. Upon
the authority of this act of parliament, the learned counsel
applied for the ride.
Rule granted.