The Express.
London, England, 1863-03-10 00:00:00

H4.RDY V. HARDY.

The !plaintiff in this ease is the stepdaughter of Mr.
William Ward, who is her tenant of a farm at Rephon in
Lincolnshire. On applyiog to him for half a year's rent he
pre her a obeque for 501., which she presented at his
bankers' at Orentbarn, bnkthey demurred, saying his balance
was in such a condition that they did not know whether
they should pay it. She then applied to Mr. Ward and
sooompained bun to the back, and there a clerk presented
to her a paper for &Wartime. She supposing that she was
becoming • surety for the repayment of the 501., in case
that should be required, signed it and got the 501. Some
time afterwards, however, She was informed that what she
had signed was a bond for 6001. to cover Ward's balance,
sod an action was brought spinet her to recover
321.5/.. the balance actually doe from him. She pleaded
fraud, and also made an application to a common law
judge to be allowed to put in au equitable plea, but he re-
fused, saying he ossaidered the plea of fraud would cover
the whole. She then Mad the present bill to mistral° the
Lotion.

Mr. Gleam and Mr. C. Swanton appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Bally and Mr. Wickens for the defendant.
The Vioe-Chsnoeffor said he was of the same opinion as
the common law judge, and dismissed the motion with
wets.

(Before Vioe•Chanoellor Sir J. Stuart.)
HARDING r. MARTIN.

It will be remembered that the primary object of this
suit, which has occupied the attention of the court for
several days during the present sittings, was to set aside, on
behalf of • lunatic plaintiff, en instrument of gift executed
by him on the 24th March, 1860, whereby be purported to
transfer all the control of his affairs, and to assign all the
furniture and other effects in his dwelling-house at Welsh-
pool, to or in favour of the defendant Martin and his
wife. Henry Jones, the lunatic, was • medical man up-
wards of 80 years of age, and was found lunatic by
inquisition on the 27th July, 1860. In January
of that year the defendant's wife (who was • niece of the
lunatic's late wife) came to visit him, and was moon
afterwards followed by the defendant The allegations in
the bill were that the defendant and his wife while residing
with Mr. Jones took advantage of his insanity or imbecility
to induos him to execute the instrument in question, and to
make various gift' of jewelkey and other things to them •
while on their behalf it was insisted that at the time when
the disputed transfer and gift were made, Mr. Jones was,
however eccentric, certainly not insane, but fully compe-
tent to manage his own affairs ; and that so far as regarded
• consideration for the instrument of the 24th March, 1860,
Mr. Martin (who was alao a medical mac) had given up &
lucrative practice at Howarth, to come sod rend° with
and assist the lunatic in his profession at Welahpool ; and
it was also contended that the other matters with which
the defendants were charged were in fact makes.
Several witnesses who had made afiklavita in the case,
were examined vied rota in open court, with respect to the
state of mind in which Mr. Jones wee from 1869 to the time
whoa he was found lunatic by the Inquisition. The bill
stated that the symptoms of his insanity first showed them-
selves towards the close of the year 1859, when he became
infatuated with a desire to marry a young lady abort
seventeen years of age; sad that his insanity also
manifested itself in • variety of eccentric, absurd, and
irratioeal acts ; for example, be would insist upon
his servants coming into the parlour of his house to dance
for him ; and would have family prayers several times in
the course of the same night, sometimes nutlike and
sometimes downstairs. He would, when the young lady
before-mentioned bad left his house, where she had been
staying, frequently kiss the chair on which she had sat, and
the carpet on which such chair bad stood. In February,
1860, he dressed the piano os his house with laurel leaves,
and said he bad put it into mourning for • young
lady whom he named. He also wanted to have the
skirts of his coat oat short, so u to be
fit (as he said) for • ball. He would also throw
• fowl or a joint of meet out of the window while be was at
dinner with the defendant and him wife. Os ens occa-
sion he insisted that all his household should sleep in one
bed, and on another, in March, 1860, when it was reining
hard, be went out of his house without any umbrella. and
called 4 the bonne of • neighbour about 10 o'clock at sight.
and there saw his wife, and upon her asking him why he Ud
come out at that time of night, he replied that he hod put
his gloves in the river sad meat go and fetch them, and he
then walked fast towards the river, and was with diffi-
culty overtaken, sod brought home by his neighbour's
wife. In the course of the very lengthy examination of the
withers, it was stated that Mr. Jones had, on the 21st of
April, 1860, executed a will ; and that the reel object of the
plaintiff (the committee) in this suit was to obtain • decree
on the lunatic's behalf, that might afterwards be seed in
the litigation which (it was conceived) must inevitably
arias as to the alleged will. The Lords Justices bad di-
rected the institution of this suit ; but when they did so
they were net informed of the existence of the will (which
was in favour of the defendant's wife), and the
bill made no mention of it. Some discussion
took place during the progress of the arguments
as to whether the present pleadiogs could not be so
amended as to include the oonsideratMo of the will with
that of the validity of the instrument of the 24th March,
1880, in order to save exposes, and the Vies-Chancellor
communicated with the Lords Justices upon the point ; but
ultimately the hearing of the case as it stood was pro-
ceeded with ; and this morning his Honour gave judgment
ie it.
. .

Baca, QAI, Mr. Walshy (of the common kw bar),
and Mr. E. H. Imehdreappeered for the plaiotiffs ; and Mr.
Malin; Q.C., Yr. Sheppard (of the common law bar), and
Mr. W. Pontoon for the defendants.
The Via-Chancellor, atter briefly commenting upon the
',Mena) of the ration' witoesess who had been examined,
and stating that the effect of it upon his mind was to show
that Mr. Jones was clearly incapable of executing any legal
instrument, and was in fact lunatic from the middle ofthe
month of March, 1860, and after remarking upon the cir-
cumstance. attending the inflames obtained by the defend.
ant o►er Mr. Jones while they resided with him, and the
use they bad made of that infloenot, prosonaced a decree
declaring the two documents of the 24th March, 1860, and
the 21st April, 1860, null end roid ; and directed other
mammy inquiries and amounts to be made sad taken io
-the caw.

COURT OF BA.NKRUPTOY.—Mmica 9.
(Before Mr. 00.1101ba01111r Or!burn.)
II IX TIN GREAT FORTNUM AND MIDLAND 00AL
COMPANY (LODTRD).
Hi Honour gave judgment on a question which bad
arisen en the settling of the list of contributories in this
sass. He said that his former decision bad been appealed
against, and in resort to some of the appellants (the seven
directors of the company) the Lords Justioee had varied
his order ; but at the close of the case, on
a suggestion from Lord Justice Torpor, it bad
been rot back to the court for re-bearing.
This company had taken the business of one Butcher (whose
history was known in that court), agreeing to pay him
8,500/., 5,5001. of which wee to be in paid up shares of the
company. Butcher bed been retired as snorer of the
company, and he bad received about 1.800/. in cash. Out
of his paid-up shares he bed, with great kit:Moen, made •
present of 100 shares each to the seven directors of the
array. The court had placed these gentlemen on the
list for 100 shares each, and for attendance fees claimed by
them, hut the Lords Justices had struck them off. At a
meeting of the promoters of the company in August, 1860,
it had been resolved that the seven gentlemen there-
after to be directors should be holders of at leer 100
shares each ; and Lord J notice Turner had thought
it necessary that the effect of this resolution should
be considered by the court below. This case
was distinguished from that of Lord Arran, who had been
constructively held by the Muter of the Rolls to be a holder
of 5001. stock in the National Investment Association—a
scheme by which numbers had been ruined ; but that cieci.
air was reversed by the Lords Justices, on the ground
that he had never accepted or Agreed to tar shares or stock
in the wiry, and had never bees • bolder of such stock.
Here the car was very differeet At a preliminary meet-
ing Mr. Botcher had submitted to these gentlemen the
statistic' of the coal trade sod a prospectus of the company,
whereupon it had been resolved that the company should
be established, Mr. Butcher to act as meager, and each of
the directors to execute the articles of samociation for 100
shares. It was curious to observe how easily gentlemen
were induced to part with their money on •
flimsy scheme like this being placed before them. In
a very short time Butcher had got 1,4001. in hard each.
The articles and memorandum of association were signed on
the 25th August ; but the directors only signed for2l shares
each, and in respect of those shares it had never been dis-
puted that they were liable. The question was whether
they were not liable for 100 shares in all, including the 21.
The court thought they wets ' • for they had agreed to ac
cept those shares, and were, therefore, held in law sad
equity to have does what they agreed to do. and were herd
to de. The court would, therefore, hold that they were
liable for 100 shares each. Bat it was said that they bad taken
those shares as paid-up shares, sod were not further !iris
Lord Justice Turner had said in strong language that this
was little short of fraud ; they were held out to the world
as bolder, of 100 shales, and to allow this
plea of paid-rep
Aare, to }mall would be keeping
the word of praise to the ear. and breaking it
to the hope. It was or of the wont features of tires
ears to notice the pitiful evasions to which gentlemen would
most to evade their liabilities The court would return, r
answer to the inquiry of the Lareetustiens, that then di-
ngier' were liable to respect of 100 arras each.