The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-21 00:00:00

satin intelltgentt.
EQUITY COUBTS.-YESTERDAY.
Bosoms ram Mama or no lama.

YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY V. GEOIDS
HUDSON, Rol , M.P.

On this ease being called,
llis Honour said he was a little shocked at seeing there
was a third suit between the sante parties.
The S ilicitor•Cleneral, who appeared for the plaintiffs,
said the first suit related to other transactions in which Mr.
Hudson was connected with other parties, who had the
grace to submit to a decree before the hearing.
His honour remarked that if these were all matters of
account between the parties, one would hate thought that
all the matters could base been settled in one suit.

The Solicitor General said he was also shocked that there
was a necessity for three suits and three disclosures, which
were painful to make, and no doubt painful to decide on.
This bill was filed for an account of profits made and money
obtained by the defendant from the York and North Mid-
land Railway, partly by means of untrue representations.
and partly by means of improper appropriations of the
plaintiffs' money.l.The general character of the transactions
was of this nature. Mr. Hudson appeared to have entered
into large contracts for the purchase of iron rails with the
firm of Thompson, Forman and Co. Having entered into
these contracts he watched the market, and sold the iron
which he had bought at 6/. 10s. and 91. to
the plaintiffs for 12!. a ton. It appeared that
he entered into con`racts for the purchase of a
considerable quantity of iron, to be delivered as he should
direct, and he directed part to be delivered to the plaintiffs
and part to another railway company, and he obtained
from the plaintiffs, by way of payment, money to en mama%
far greater than the price. He was sorry to say that In me
of the cases relit' ous invoices were made out. Another
series of transactions was of this character, for there was
nothing too large for the defendant, sod on some occasions
nothing too small. On various loan transactions and sales
el debentures, transactions on the part of the plaintiffs
taish men Manned by the defendant as the chairman of
Me , he waived from the broker one-half of the
which was debited to its full amount to the
eompany, and he appropriated the one-half so received by
him to his own use. On another occasion he obtained from
the Bank of England 80,0001., having negotiated with the
Bask a loan of that amount to the company, het instead of
paying the whole 80,0001. to the credit of the company, ha
paid only 50,0001., and applied the other 30,000!. in part
payment of an estate for which he had contracted. This
sum of missy he retained to his own use for a period long
enough ID scare Mae lose to the plaintiffs is interest.
Then tear MO lane testimony in this suit aft fa the other
suit—eidtherf. _
_so w the absolute power sal mpatrol ezer-
Med by Om delberieet over the whole of the ppeseedings of
the aemort The set iaeorpenting ilho mespany
pared ifs Ma. Daendant we. awaked la the set
as aft it die prerisiemal illeellemo emi ha as the
eashig Illhe eempim Imi ha Mind te he Sidman
sae IND, whoa le seelseeL The peat pre-emi•
cease be c si*Wised la what was celled the railway
world, MI MI OS tie part of hie brother dinettes and the
oaken of the the mem implicit sullnission to his
will. The darrimrl /clasps secretary sad his principal
agent in these treeseedemo wee Mr. Close. Another of his
agents was Mr. Nielicdsoa, his brother in-law, sod one In-
stance of his extraordinary power was that when Sir Joha
Simpeon had been eppoiated in the regular way one of the
auditors of the company, Mr. Hudson on his own authority
put Sir John Simpson aside, and substituted Mr. Nicholson
as auditor is his stead. He stated on a former occasion
that Mr. Nicholson died insolvent. He was informed that
that statement pee pain to a lady, Mrs. Hudson, the
sister of Mr. Nicholson, end be now wished to state that
Mr. Nicholson's debts had all been paid by Mr. Hudson.
The defendant having this control the court would not be
surprised to hear that these transactions pawed without
notice, until circumstances occurred which indaced an in-
vestigation. The first claim which plaintiffs made was for
a sea of 2,2031. 12s. 11d., with interest thereon. In
Amps, 1844, Mr. Hudson entered, in his own name, into
• matrect with Thompson, Forman, and Co., for 2,500 tons
of iron rails. There had been many previous contracts, but
they were in the name of the company. The price was
61. lOs. per ton, and the defendant distributed these rails
between the plaintiffs' company and tke Newcastle and
Darlington, which had since been merged into the York,
Newcastle, and Berwick. The quantity delivered to the
plaintiffs company was 785! tons, in respect of which
plaintiffs paid him 7,000/ in May, 1815, the amount
which would have been payable under the contract
being 4,7961. 75., the difference being 2,2031. 135., the
amount of the claim. The Newcastle and Darlington Com-
pany, it appeared, paid the defendant 2,2031. too little for
the iron rails delivered to them, bat that was set right by
their afterwards paying that sum to hint The neat item
was of • different character. Defendant, on the 11th
January, 1845, ecntracted with Thompson, Forman, and
Co. for 10,000 tons of iron rails, at 61. 10s. • ton, and on the
same day he appeared to have made a contract with the
same firm for 2,000 tone, at 81. 10s. • ton, 21. a ton more
than in the first contract, the reason for which he (the
Solicitor-General) hail not been able to discover. Of these,
2,511 tons were delivered to the company, for which the
defendant charged 121. a ton. In order to get from the
company this payment, Mr. Hudson produced to the com-
pany an Invoice, by which It was made to appear that the
rails had been bought by the York and North Midland
Railway of Thompson and Forman, at 121. a ton. That
Mewthent was proved to have been prepared by Mr. Gray,
thementary, and Mr. Woodley, one of the clerks, by direr
ohm of Mr. Claw, and was exhibited to the directors on the
MI April, 1846. That was before the delivery of part of
the walla. and part of the complaint was, that these payments
were obtained by anticipation. On the 15th April, 1846, •
cheque for 10,5581. was signed by three of the directors, and
was handed over to Mr. Claw, who gave a memorandum
that he bad received it for Thompson and Co.
The cheque, however, was paid to the private
account of the defendant, and Mr. Adams, clerk
and manager for Thompson and Co., proved
that no payment was wade to them until December, 1646.
The next step in the transaction was that in November,
1846; an application was made by the defendant to Mr.
Woodley for a cheque for 13,4421., which sum he repre-
sented to have been paid by him to Thompson and Forman
on account of rails, and such was his influence and authority
that, though this was • most irregular transaction, Woodley
delivered the cheque for the purpose of its being signed by
the director) in the usual way. The cheque, however, ap-
peered to have been signed by Mr. Hudson alone, but it was
paid by the bank and charged by them to the company. lie
received therefore from the company altogether in this
transaction 21,0001. for that for which be paid only
16.6061. le. rid., leaving an original difference of
7,3941. 18s. 4d. as the illicit gain of the defendant on this
transaction. When defendant retired frem the office of
shairmaa in 1849 a committee of investigation was ap-
Cr, and they discovered the circumstances with regard
etatthet entered into by the defendant with Thomp-
son and Filemmi. A representation was made to the de-
beAseit. GM an the 22nd of May, 1849, he sent the directors
an IMMeinet made out by himself. That account claimed to
Merge the 121. • ton, and he made out that there
ma • balms, due fYtm, him of 1,7321.65. 9d.• and he sent
a cheque for that amount. The directors had given Mr.
Hudson credit for this 1,7321. Os. 9d. as part payment of the
7,3941. 18s. 4d. He now asked for • declaration that Mr.
nude= was liable to make good to _the plaintiffs
5,6824 Ils. 7d., and 5 per cent. interest. In the
amount which defendant sent in he included a
=a of 9,001!. 45., which plaintiffs said was in
rermeet of a totally different transaction, and they
leased that to him and he sent them • cheque
fee 9,000 f. It appeared that 3,000 tons of iron rails were
&Aimed to the plaintiffs company, being part of
• quantity. of 5,000 tons which defendant had eon-
treated for in his own name with Thompeam and Forman,
on the 29th August, 1845, at 91. a ton, to be delivered at
Selby; and on the 3rd September, 1845, Mr. Close ordered
graotrodns of the 6,000 to be delivered to the Leeds and
, and they were afterwards transferred to the
CThe other thousand tons was delivered by
and Forman, under another contract with the
counts d at 91. a ton. The learned : here went
M
into a elatemeat of figures, from which it appeared that
the comperay paid 9,0011. 41. for this iron, beyond the price
of 9!. per ten; and he said that Mr. Close represented to
Mr. Woodley that the price paid to Thompeoa and Forman
was 121. a ton, and in consequence of that misrepresentation
he procured heques from Woodley in payment. Payment
was made in Jane, 1846, and in Kay, 1849, defendant sent
a cheque to plaintiffs for 9,0001. The claim against him
therefore on this item was 11. 45., the amount of principal
underpaid and the interest on 9,0001. from June, 1846, to
May, 1849. The fourth claim was in respect of the interest
upon • loan of 80,000/., obtained by the defendant for the
company, and a portion of which be appropriated for a time
to his own purposes. The loan was negotiated with the
Bank of England, and Mr. Hudson obtained payment on
the 31st May, 1841, in two cheepaes—one for 50,0001., and
the other for 30,000!. The 50,0001. was paid by the
plaintiff to Glynn's, to the credit of the Union Bank
I at York, by whom it was carried to Mr. Hudson's private
eemeat. he other cheque, for 30,0001., was paid by the
tielhaasat to Strachan, Paul, and Co.' the bankers of the
Dabs of Devonshire, towards payment for an estate which
Mr. Hudson had purchased of the duke. The loan of
10,0011 L was negotiated by the plaintiff for the purpose of
paying for the Whitby and Pickering Railway. The con-
tract was that it should be paid for a month after the bill
authorising the sale had received the royal assent. It re-
igned the royal assent on the 30th of June, and the money
therefore was not due till the 31st of July, and the money
therefore was procured by the plaintiff two months before
It was needed for the purpose for which it was borrowed.
De facto the money was not paid till some time after it was
ate. 11,101. was paid in July, and the rest of the 80,0001.
an the tad, 3rd, and 4th of September. During this time
the sweat of the company with the bank was overdrawn
111,01111., and they had to pay interest on that.= ofinoney at
5 per Dent. which they would not have had to pay if the 80,000 f.
had I wen paid in to their credit instead of to the credit of
the defendant. The amount which they had thus to pay
for interest was 1,3701., and he therefore now sought to
charge the defendant with that sum. The nest transaction
was the commission. It appeared that the practice was for
broken to charge fn. per cent. procuration money on loaas
negotiated by them ; but when they were acting on behalf
of bookers or companies, they only charged half that
amount. Mr. Lawrence, the broker, stated l his evidemel
that prior to December, 1847, his firm were in the habit of
negotiating loans of mosey for the plait, and es
charging thin a tomialerisa of only 24. 114. per 1001., bit