The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-21 00:00:00

LAW INTBLLIGENCE.

COURT OF QITERN'S BRITCH.--JvNg 20.
After Two &Won sa Nit Prius.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Oodtbars sod a Special Jury.)
roe= V. CHOILIT.---1111 MIDLAND CAMPO COMPANY.
The further hearing of this case was rimmed thin
morning.
Yr. Weddy was counsel for the plaintiff ; Kr. Coleridge.
Q.C., hfr. Raymond, and Mr. Humps were counsel for the
defendant.

' After some formal evidence,
Mr. Morris, solicitor, deposed that be was appointed
attorney to the Midland Banking Company tram the first.
From certain circumstances which cam* to his knowledge
he thought it advisable to settle Mr. Walton's sod the
plaintiffs chime. His firm had been soliciton to the back
from the time the prospectus wee first issued. Messrs.
Kimberley and Pops were assomated. He had reason to
complain a short time after of some matters connected
with the promoters es distinguished from the directors,
and be tendered his resignation to Mr. ilhees, the
then chairman of the board. He said witness
could not do that without seriously injuring the
beak, and he consented to remain on Mr. Sta-
b assuring him he should be the sole solicitor.
el7as to let it work its way, and on the first opportunity
Messrs. Kimberley and Pope were to retire. On the 15th of
May Mr. Kimberley waited on him and informed him that
Mr. Charley had been instructed to bring these serious, and
✓equested him to all on the defendant. He did so on the
following morning, but oe hie way be met Mr. Kimberley,
who went with him to the defendant's sod introduced him,
and left. The defendant informed him of the circumstance
of the actions, and be told the plaintiff in confidence his
position with regard to Kimberley, and that as
he mistrusted his statement he wished him to
give him • statement of the facts. Defendant
said Walton had taken his shares upon the
faith of the respectability of witoms's firm, seeing
they were advertised as the solicitors. He told the defend-
ant that be had not celled on him at the request of the
bank, but that as the beak was being then reorganised with
• strong and a highly respectable board of directors, be
considered it was extremely desirable that Walton's com-
plaint should be met if It could be consistently done. He
said Walton was a beedetrong, impetuous man, and that be
had told him be should decline to awry out Walton's
threat and expose the matter at the Mansion-house. The
'hues were thee, and were now at a premium, and he took
fO, sad the chairmaa 50, of Hi:. Walton's shares. Instead
of consulting his clients, he acted on his own responsibility,
because defendant said he expected Mr. Walton there in
half an hour, and unless something was done Walton would
take away the papers to some unecrupuloes man and en-
deavour to injure the bank. He told defendant he
would give a cheque for the shares, bat his name was not to
be divulged. Before anything was said about a guarantee
he told the defendant he would take the shares at the
price Mr. Walton gave for them, bat he would not
pay costs. Charley said be bad been instructed to ask for
them, but that after witoem's freak manner he would not
insist on them. Witness asked him to orphan Foster's claim,
sod be did so, adding that the plaintiff had supplied Walton
with information which had unsettled Waltou's mind. Charley
said there was grist personal ill.feeling between the plain-
tiff and Stephens, which made it extremely difficult to
settle the matter between them. and be further said he did
not believe that Kimberley or Stephens had saythiag with
which to pay. Witness said he had sufficient personal in-
fluence over all parties concerned to compel them to pay the
plaintiff whatever was justly doe to the plaintiff. He un-
derstood the plaintiff's claim was for salary, and sot for
promotion money. Defendant said be thought he could
answer for plaintiff's agreeing to his suggestions, and
witness observed that if they met in the mme
spirit, and investigated his claim as they bad Walton's,
he felt certain they could arrange it. Charley asked him to
give a written undertaking, but at tint he refuted to give
anything except his cheque. Defendant said he must have
something in his position upon which to immure Mr. Walton
that if the matter was left in his hands the shares would be
taken from him at their cost price within a limited time.
Upon that, defendant, at his request, drew up the
guarantee—a copy of which had been put in—having refer-
ents to Walton and the plaintiff. On the 4th June, when
he gave the cheque for Walton's shares, the guarantee was
put into his hands, and he was about to preserve
it, but the defendant objected, bemuse if it was to
be kept he was the proper custodian of it. After
that, the latter part, and which had been pro-
duced was copied, examined and signed, and the original
document was destroyed, defendant gave him his assurance
that the original guarantee had not been seen by or com-
municated to any one. On the 22nd June the plaintiff called
upon him, and be informed him the mooed marimates was
substantially the same as the first, aced his impression was
that the plaintiff left his aloe per featly @aided. He
had always been ready to perform his part of the
but the plaintiff declined to have hie claim
rvialsarated, because he believed an unconditional guarantee
bad been given. Witness told him no snob guarantee
had been given. He had never refused to carry out the
guarantee, but had offered to refer the claim to arbitra-
tion, or facilitate the trial against Kimberley and Stephens
for the salary, and he would have been 'hie for the
result. He bad always told the plaintiff • nature of the
guarantee, though the plaintiff appeared to think and wrote
to him that an umooditiosal guarantee had been given.
Plaintiff wrote to him that, believing that to be the case,
he should stead on that promise, and not allow the case to
be re-opened, and upon that be declined any further cone-
✓oodooism with the plaintiff.
The learned judge having summed up,
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.— hors 20.
(Before Mr. Cotomiaiooer Goalbws.)
APPLICATION FOR CONNITTAL OF A VITINIOL

Mr. Sargood, in the matter of a bankrupt seined Formsy,
an innkeeper at Southampton, applied for an order to
commit • witness named Pink, son-in•law of the bitakrupt
who I. December last had been ordered to pay the costa of
as adjourned sitting rendered necomary by Lie refening to
answer, sod bad not dope so.
Mr. It. Joom, on behalf of Mr. Pink, opposed tb•zVii
eatioo. co the ground that the sitar was sot 0002pe
by law to answer the quondam pet to him, hie attereey not
being allowed to be in the room. It appeared that Mr.
Jones had bees excluded bemuse he was mites. for the
witness, and also as Loodon asset for the bankrupt's
attorney. Heals° contendod that the mart had so powr
to order a witness to pay mete ; it could only at6.ah him
sod commit him for contempt on him 'photons.
Mr. &mood mid that son-oompliants with an mural the
court was a clear contempt
Hie Honour said it was seossest7 that • formal &mail
of the meta should be made.

184;grod said this bad bees dime. Application bad
been nude to Pink in April Let, sod he had promised pay-
ment oit the same day.
His Honour was of opinion that the ease did not tarn as
the risers! power of the court to commit for oostecopx He
put it on higher ground. By the 226th series of the act of
1861, exprese power wasgiven dropout to commit say
who wilfully disobeyed any of it. orders duly nude .7.. r.
purpose of adoring the purposes sad worriers of the act.
The excuse met up for the ref uml of the witness was prep**.
terms. If a witoem was not compellable to answer gar-
rotes there would be an aid of the jenedictiou of the 00431 t.
He should grant a warrant for the committal et the wit-
her, but would stay its issue for • week with a view to as
arrangement befog made.
Sargood said if the warrant was to be submitted to
he should 000 pent to en adjournment. lf not, he would
set the court to roue the warrant immediately.
Mr. Joists said be asked for no favour. His client rood
aura his nghte, and meant to appeal.
The Commissioner—Then I shell gnat the warrant with- '
out any adjournment.
Mr. Jests belied the court to flx the amount doors to be
deposited for the appeal, sod shirred 101.
His Honour fixed the amount at 201., and said it would
be honorary that the order should be drawn up with great
care.

Mr. Jones asked that the order should be stayed till he
had so opportunity of appealiog.
His Honour said he would stay the issue of the minima
foe tea days.

NOIBI IN T9t COURT.

His Honour, in reference to the some ocakaiosed by paw
lug vehicles, stated that be bad stilton to the Lord Mayor
on the alibied, and hod received from Isis lordship. very
kind and
ed
tgi &dour answer, promising that the tnatter should
be attendo.