The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-11 00:00:00

§.4n inttllignut.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Mr. Justice Williams and a special Jury.
GRAHAM O. COX AND OTIIEnri.—ACTION BY OFFICIAL
AIMIONEE OF A DISSOLVID RAILWAY CONPANY.—Mr.
Serjt. Bylee, Mr. Serjt. Darling, and Mr. Bramwell, were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjt. Channell (with
whom was Mr. Wilke) appeared for defendants.—This wax
an action of debt by the plaintiff, Mr. George Graham, of
Coleman-street, suing as assignee of the Tring, Reading,
and Basingstoke Railway Company (dissolved undo- L-id
Dalhousie's Act), to recover the sum of 6,300/., with interest,
from the defendants, Messrs. Cox and Co., of Throgmerten- I
street, brokers, which sum the declaration alleged to have
been advanced to the defendants by the company before its
dissolution. The pleas were in denial of the debt, of the
existence of the company, of its being registered as alleged,
and of the plaintiff's title to sue. In support
of pleintifFs case it was shown that the scheme
in question was provisionally registered in August,
1845, its object being to connect the London and Birming-
ham, the Great Western, end the South-Western Railways,
by one line 41 miles in length, and that the prospectus
was registered in the I llowine September, which delimit)• d
the proposed capital at 700,0001., in 14,000 shares, at 501.
each. Moreover, shares to the number of 6,370 were allotted,
and a depoeit of five guineas on each share was paid up, and
the subscription contract was signed by several sit the
allotten. Mr. Francis Henry Fitzhardinge Berkeley, a
member of the provisional committee, further proved that the
company, having a largo sum standing to their credit at their
bankers, the Commercial Bank, it was resolved at a meeting
of tho committee in October, 1845, to lay out the surplus
sum above 5,0001. at interest. A resolution to this effect was
now read in evidence. A cheque for 6,3001., drawn upon
the Commercial Bank, and ma le payable "to investment
or bearer," and signed by three of the directors and the
secretary to the company, " G. 0. Green." was also read.
This cheque was shown to have been paid into the account
of defendants, at their bankers, Messrs. Williams and Co.,
and was sworn not to have been given tor any debt from the
company to them, but as Mi. Berkeley conceived in pur-
suance of the resolution to invest the surplus capital at in-
termit. There was likewise a letter from defendants, written
to Mr. Hill, the solicitor to the company, dated September,
1845, speaking on behalf of twelve persons whose shares
were held as a security for money advanced, and begging the
lean might be continued for one mouth, which letter was
read in evidence as an admission by the defendants of the
existence of a loan from the company to them. It appeared
an act for about fifteen miles of the originally proposed line
had passed a second reading in the House of Commons,
when the scripholdere, availing themselves of Lord Dal-
heuaie's Act (9 & 10 Viet., c. 28), at a meeting convened
for the purpose, came to a resolution to dissolve
and so to pave the way for a fiat in b,,nkruptcy against the
company. The fiat and proceedings in ban', ruptcy (made
evidence under the lith section of 7 and 8 Vic., c. 111, in
the case of joint sleek companies, which section is incorpo-
rated by reference in Lord Dalhousie's Act) were put in ;
and also the Gazette, dated Sept. 15, 1846 (made evidence
under section 16 of Lord Dalhousie's Act), was read, in order
to prove the proceeding= of the meeting of the seripholdere,
when it wits agreed to dissolve the company. This was the
plaintiff's case. A number of objections were then Viten c n
behalf of defendants, resting upon the construction of Lord
Dalhousie's Act, to the waut of title of plaintiff to maintain
the present action, and the proof of the existence of any
debt from the defendants to the company was objected to as
nsufficient.—Mr. Justice Williams said he was of opinion
that the present claim wet not one for which th
company could have sued before bankruptcy ; it was
a demand in respect or a loan, but a company only pro.
visionally registered had sin power to lend money; and as
oo neither could the pilau-
the company could not have s:edt
tiff in the capacity of representing the company. Being of
that opinion, it sou unnecessary t 9 &Ns the other point)