The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-21 00:00:00

tats inttlitgnut.

Corer or Crier etar.—ltegistrar's.ofEce, Dee. 20, 1847.—Notiot—
rie Lord Chancellor Intend. to deliver Lis judgment in WI the several
matters now waiting his deciaon at the corucurnerment of next term;
but his lordship MI been pleased to communicate to Mr. ()dale Ur
order{ ha to make in the following awes, which were heard
previously to Le•t vacation, via.: Bell v. Lord Mekborough ; Lacy v.
bugle; Davis v. Chanter: ILole v. Markley ; :tack% v. Daw-
son ; Kirk v. The Bromley Union; Cores v. Lovnitics al ickland v.
Strickland; Parker v. Morrell; Peacock v. Bernet

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nut rams, Grunneu...—Betore lard Daiwa and • Special Jury. •
TRI QUERN O. CH•IIITII AND OTRIBA.—INDICT.
MINT FOR TRA/PTICLING IN THIS SAL! OF A CADITSIIIP
IN THE SEIVICI OF Till BAST INDIA COMPANT.-111111
case, which wu partly beard on Saturday, and of which a
report appeared in toe Evros., of yesterday, was re-
sumed at the sitting of the court. Mr. Crowder, Q.C., for
Capt. Charretie, and Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., for Sir W. Young,
severally objected that the evidence did not sustain the in-
dictment. 'These proceedings woligskasi{uted nada, tha th
Oeo. 3, c. 146, by which the riaelf Goy " oMegeogundoe
sion, place, or employment," .in sbuyliervios of abb merag,
or of the But India Corn any purelan elagree-
ment to pay for the nomilloMent he appantatant, or the
feviica
resignation of any such o s , was made an indictable
offence. The evidenoe b that, in this cam, the
thing obtained was only to which entitled the
parson to whom it wu gi iiiitenelve a coaannasion on his
armee' in India ; it was, the , "lir as inchoate right to
an office or a commission, 311kketlelf as offloo er com-
mission. * 14 , ..1 •
Lord Denman : I have not the slighllbet^ okilit on the
subject. The cue must go to the jury.
Mr. Crowder then add:need the jury for Capt. Charretia.

His client was • eenthman advanced in life, who, after a
long and acing career, was sow, for the first time, amused
of dish thoureble conduct. The case had been conduct din
a manner "my a range, and evincing • determe
• nation to eructs him. The array of counsel wuj
moat formidable, and most unusual. One ground
of complaint, however, was more important at I
Prior to the trial the company had formed iteelf tote • special
tribunal, and, before a secret committee, had endeavoured to
sift by rigotius cross examination the knowledge and
memory of the defendants, is order to get out of them the
materials of a aonviction. In this country a magistrate, and
indeed every person in authority,is prevented from receiving
from en accused person anythiiig but a voluntary statement,
and that after a warning that it would be used against the
party making it. Was the practice a foreign coustries, the
moral torture there inflicted, to be introduced into this
country ? Was the East India Compaq alone in this
country to have the prerogative of putting • supposed cul-
prit to the quesiinn ? If the interrogatories had been con-
fined to a mere demand of explanation, that might have been
tolerated ; but in this case Capt Charretie had been crow.
entwined 'met hostilely. Yes, ho-tilely ; for his letters to
Wotherthoon had not been shown to him until he bad been
examined about them. This was contrary to law ; it was as
attempt to entrap wholly condemned by the principles of
Ensile& procedure. This cross-rumination was now relied
on. And, whatever the result might be, such conduct
was mr et discreditable and oppressive. Another portion of
the evidence to which be must object, was the testimony of
Mr. Wotherspoon, a delinquent who ought to be in the place
of Capt. Charretie ; his was the money that was paid ; his
ion was the person who had the benefit of the nomination.
Why had the meney been paid by him it he had no guilty
intention ? His prevarication and shuffling would be in the
recollection of the jury. He said he did not pay it for the
purp 48 charged, and that it was paid to obtain a ceromis-
mon at the Hinge Guards. Why did he not get it back ?
Why did he not ask it ba k ? The reason he gave was most
absurd—nay, meet false. He was the an at delinquent; he
ought to hose been prosecuted • and, if he had been prose-
cuter', could he have put (inn:A a sufficient defence ? He
did not come to this court with an express promise that his
son should not be dismissed ; but it was plain that hie evi-
dent* had been Oven under a tear that his son might be dis-
missed, and in a hnpo that he would be retained in the office
which he ndmitted had been bought. In this, as in all
other oases, the guilt of the defendant must be established
beyond a reesenahle doubt. It was clear that
Wetherspeon peel 1,0801 to Mee Stewart. It was proved
that two Flllll were paid into Captain Charretie's account,
in the very notes of WM end 3001., by which part of the
sum of 1,0801. had been paid. But who paid that money
in 1 From weom did the notes get into the hands of the
bankers? This qiierti in was left unanswered by the prose-
cution. The only feet established then was, that the notes
were paid in. Beyond that there was only the evidence
that there had been a connexion in business between Cap-
tain Charred. and Hallett. No doubt Hallett had the money.
or a portion of it, from MM. Stewart ; and, what more pro
bable than that it was paid to Capt. Charretie in respect
of dealings in shares, es the defendant himself bad said be-
fore the committee in October, 1846? The money was paid
in June, 1844; the examination was in the autumn of
1840; the answers of C let. Charretie, therefore, were as
specific at COlll.l le reason he expected. There was nothiog
in which men differed so much as their modes of keeping
accouete; the defendant, Charretie, therefore, roust not be
celled on for explanations as specific as those which would be
gin n by one who had kept habitually careful and accurate
&counts. Captain Charretie kept no accounts beyond his
busker.' book, and to his ankera he referred the secret com-
mittee. He must, if guilty, have known that the notes had
been paid, and that their numbers had been taken ; yet be
referred his accuser' to his bunkers. lf, as the account of
the bankers must be taken to show, from 300 to 400 trans-
actions had taken place during the two years then last past
between him and from 70 to 80 people, amounting to more
than 8,0001., it was rather hard to ask, after an interval of
two years and a half, who paid in these particular notes ?
As to the °tinr part of the evidence, what was it but an at-
tempt, improper no doubt, but not criminal, to save info-
sure ? No connexion between Charretie and Mn, Stewart
had been shown ; no knowledge of her even. Nominations
were much sought after, and often given away w ithout suf-
ficient inquiry and knowledge. That was wrong; still it
was done. For this appointment Capt. Charretie had asked
at the request of Trotter, who had been and was his intimate
friend. That was beyond all doubt ; and it was for Hallett
that he asked. As het ween Trotter and Charretie there was not
the slightest suspicion of unfair dealiag or of reward.
Trotter had been called fir the prosecution ; and therefore
whatever Trotter had not contradicted in Charraie's state-
ment which he might have contradicted was cenfirmed.
Trotter said that he received mosey from Hallett, but not
from Charade, and that he did not then tell Cbsrretie. No
doubt Charretie afterwards thought that he bad done wrong
in trusting to Trotter when he asked Sir Wei. Young for
such an riffine ; but that wu far differeut from the charge in
the indictment. Wee—these observations the whole of
Charretie's examination might be left to the jury, for they
would explaiu ids conduct. He had done wrong in asking
for the appointment without sufficient inquiry ; Sir Wm.
Young had done wrong in nominating without sufficient
inquiry; they had most wrongly endeavoured to conceal
this, and to concoct a case which should stifle further investi-
gation ; and the cussequenee was, as in all cases wherein
untruth was resorted to, that these attempts to evade • mere
culpability were used to prove the tact of a crime in law.
The letter from Sir William Young to Charretie, on
which so much awe was laid in the opening,
in which Sir W. Young promised the nomination,
Captain Charretie had actually parted with; and as
naturally the litter had found its way to the person at whose
instance Charretie's friend had been put in motion for solicit-
ing the appointment. True it was that Charretie went to
Edinburgh ; but that was natural at a time when an inves-
tigation was to be made into alleged pecuniary destinies in
the hue/ of his application to Sir William Young. He was
bound to do that both in duty to Sir William Young and
for his own sake. Of what he did there his own account
must be taken, for Wotherspoon's evidence was not entitled
to credit—at all events, not entitled to credit as against a
consistent and probable account by any one else, such as the
account given by the defendant. Trotter had not been asked
whether the defendant had not taxed him as responsible for
the misconduct of the parties whom he bad recommended ;
the defendant said that he did so tax Trotter. The conclu-
sion then was that the delendartt had theme, told the truth.
If be had told the truth therein, that was only consistent
with his innocence. As regarded the letters, they were
framed with a view to concealment. That was the real ex-
planatioa of them. It was an error—a grievous error—for
which the defendant must suffer in the opinion of the jury ;
but that error did not make out this particular charge.
Thee came the evidence of Wotherspoon. Was it to be
believed that this solicitor of 25 years' standing bad parted
with his money in the manner described, without a guilty
) Why did he not get the 1,0801. back ? Because
Cf::
waiting to settle an account of 201. ! Why did he
trust her? Because he would make it appear she had de-
ceived him bet re. Was his answer about not knowing
whether he had received the certificate and declaration " on
honour"—that declaration in which he asserted that he had
received the nomination gratuitously—to be believed? Was
he to he believed when he said that he had net read the
document which contained the questions about the birth and
baptism; or, at all events, bad not read that part which
said that he had obtained the nomination on his own gra-
tuitous solicitation, without having paid anything for it,
would not thereafter pay money in consideration of it,
and was aware that if it should, at any time thereafter
be discovered that he had paid, or agreed to pay, money
for it, the commission would he lost? Would the jury con-
vict any ens of even the slightest offence on the uncorroborated
testimony of such a witness? There was in evidence a letter
to him from Mee Stewart, relating to the difficulty of get-
ting into the Bengal army, and yet he said that he did not
know that any application was to be made fur a commission
in the service of the company. As to the attempt to fabri-
cate evidence of an intimacy between Sir W. Young and
Wothermoon, that, no doubt, was in pursuance of the un-
happy system of concealment that had been resorted to ; but
it was remarkable that none of the lettere relating to this or
any other part of the ease 'hewed Charretie to have received
any of the money. Mr. Wotheropoon said that when he
011310 to town he refused to make any statement respecting
the alleged agency in &Wend, but he nevertheless went to
see Sir W. Young at the India House. The variations in
the statements of Sir W. Young were also in pursuance of
the system of concealment resorted to, no doubt
most wrongly, but yet in no way that showed
this charge to h true. If Charretie never re-
aired the money, he ought to be acquitted of this
charge, whatever other blame hr might fairly be open to ;
sad that was a couelusion at which the jury would readily
arrive in the case of one who, at the agent Se years, was for
the first time charged with an offence, and that one so grave.
—Mr. Cockburn then addressed the jury for Sir William
Young. He approached the task with great anxiety in the
ease of a man who had lived, without imputation of disho-
nour, for nearly three-quarters of a century ; had filled high
offices in the military service of the company, and had re-
ceived the highest honours which it could bestow. The can
of Sir Wm. Young was essentially distinct and different from
that of Capt. Charretie. Sir Wm, Young was not charged
with attempting to conceal the conduct at the other patine
but with aiding and abetting them to perpetrate the
athal offence. However wrong his attempt to con-
teal might be, there was nothing in the evidence
to implicate him in the actual charge. The pro-
secution itself wee right. Of that he did not complain;
it was satisfactory to the world that such a prosecution had
bees inatituti d ; for, as the directors would not be the men
to throw the first stone eta brother (unless themselves pure)
the other directors must by this prosecution be taken to feel
themselves free from suspicion. But he did complain that
to their seal the directors should bave instituted or unc-
laimed sub • mode of obtaining evidence at bad been re-
angled to by the secret committee in this case. Neither zna-
slelsek nor judge, nor jury, might or dared in a criminal
M de anythorg like what had been dens in this inquisi-
tion, enedeeted in this secret conclave, remonelesely against
• maa who was before them, without a friend or adnser to
Mkt him. In no ease had cross-examination ever bees con-
ciliated with ise meeili rigour. The caution that what was
kid might be need was relied on. Bid it warts Sir Wm.
Teens that preesedinga were to be instituted 'gaunt him ?
Why was so Wined= held out to Sir Wm. Yours before
lima subjected to tbh aural duress, that he might bseoms
We eldest of a criminal preettation ? All he knew wee that
kb semen were to be used an a court of justice, sot that
Way well be mood eyelet himself. Such an exthimados
nailed Nita of peoessileye described an having bean
ides Woe die eribeeel of the inquisition. Tido was
me Se bet Ilse sok emelesiene bad been takes; but
Y sons elareene des esi smileseime were given la wi-
ows lbw dieffellOlS vessAgraniat became, hod for
Witt mwdaeldow• ar mama Yews woo deeked
▪ iseeposaseetlei. dim yeah, be se age wise Um.
Now went 111111 bee Temegs=l;e siskeireeled thleriet-
-21::::04.6.48.960a5je:reat • geed maks et 7011:112

ilkaigllMisimirmiihNel

had employed Capt. Charrede in matters of business on many
(evasions. Capt. Chenille asked for a nomination—Sir
William Yong proton, d the next one. Why should that
Ibe a corrupt act ? Was it extraordinary that Sir William
Young should accede to the requ, at of Captain Charrctie ?
Whether or not Charretie received these notes from Hallett
or any one else, did not—and it was not pretended that it did
—affect Sir William Young. No charge of having actually
received the money was brought against Sir William Yousg,
though without delicacy, or punclltionaneas, or remorse, the
accounts of Capt. Charretis bad been examined, and this too
by the permission of his bankers, between whom and the
customer it had always been assumed that a confidential rela-
tion existed. The accounts of Sir William Young's bankers
had not been produced, though the jury might be assured
they had been examined. Unless then a sufficient reason
could be shown why Sir Win. Young should not have given
this patronage to Capt. Charretie, the fact that no part of the
money could be traced to Sir Wm. Young was an answer to
this "huge. The examination of diuretic said in
terms that be applied on behalf of Wotherapoon,
whose father and oonnexions be said that he knew.
What pseud b-tweea Sir William Young and Char-
retie could not be proved, but the jury would not
hastily infer guilt from circumstance" that were consistent
with innocence. The letter in November was quite consistent
with this view; for it was quite natural that having promised
Charretie the nomination, he should write to soy so. He
signed the paper which said that the recommendatioa was
from the father of the young man nominated, but it was clear
that he merely signed the piper in the ordinary course when
put before him, without further reading it. Was the Scotch
attorney to be believed, when be said that he had not read
the paper in which he had filled up the twelve blanks ?
No ; but every one knew with what facility papers of
routine were signed by men in office without reading
any part of their contents. Of connexion with Mrs. Stewart,
with Hallett, with Trotter, with Wotherspoon, there was not
the slightest evidence against Sir Win. Young. The more
difficult and painful part of the case was that relating to the
circumstances of 1846. In that year Mrs. Stewart and Mr.
Hallett got mixed up with some other transaction. She had
been induced to let out the Mot, probably to influence others
towards doing the like, that she had paid money for Wother.
spoon's cadetship. Sir Wm. Young was called on to explain
before the secret committee. No doubt he was then betrayed
into a stab meat which was not true ' • but was he, for not
avowing that he had been so betrayed, and suffering himself
to be led from one false step to another, to be held gudiy of
this charge ? All that he did was consistent with the sup-
position of his innocence. Artifice and evasion in 1846 did
not prove guilt in 1844. Sir Win. Young was then far ad-
vanced in years, very nervous, and with a mind impaired by
age and illaem. He was in a state of infirmity of body and
mind. He was informed in 1846 that suspicion attached to
a piece of patronage of hie in 1844, extending even to an
imputation on himself, that a charge of irregularity
and impropriety must attach ; and that, perhaps,
on that an accusation of corruption might be
founded. Charretie went to Edinburgh, and when
he returned he told Sir Wm. Young that money had passed
from Wotherepoon. Now there bad been irregularity in the
popen. Suppose that Charretie suggested to Sir Wm.
Young to make certain statements. If, either to screen his
friend or avert blame from himself, Sir W. Young assented,
was he to b' found 'guilty of a share in the original con-
, ruption ? Tbis suggestion, it was beyond doubt, on Charm,
tie's statement, came from himself. It might have appeared
to him that he could nave himself by bringing guilt home to
a director ; yet he did nothing of the kind, but made the
statement dencriued in his examination, that he wished to
have the weeniere of an acquaintance between Mr.
Wotherspoon and Sir W. Young made out, because it was at
I his instance Sir W. Young had given the commission for
giving which be might be blamed. He would not contend
that age, or infirmity, or sickness, could justify an untruth,
hut they might explain how it was that in an evil
moment he was betrayed into a step which they,
and those connected with him, could not think of without
regret nor look beck on without shame. If at ono and
the same time ho found that his friend was involved in them
suspicions, and he himself likely to be exposed to them, and
was told that a few words from him could save both ; if be
then took one fatal step, and afterwards persisted, for the
purpose of preventing the detection, not of his share is the
original transaction, but of the subsequent falsehood, was it
astonishing, or unnatural, though unjustifiable ? If, though
unjustifiable, this conduct was cot unnatural, then it could
not be vouched in proof of any share in the original transac-
tion. If the case bad rested ex the evidence of the original
transaction, there was nothing at all that showed guilt. The
other part of the case rested on admissions wrung from Sir
Wm. Young, under circumstances such as he had already
described and reprobated; circumstances calculated to betray
him into a falsehood, which was afterwards made the
evidence of another and different crime. He bad said that
he felt anxiety in deeding with this case; it was not for Sir
Wm. Young, who most soon be removed from the scene,
but for those who before long would have nothing of their
father but the heritage of his good name and unsullied
memory.
Capt. Maher, Mr. Hodifkinson, Capt. Faulkner, Capt.
Probin' Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Scalia, Mr. Stone
(of the firm of Stone, Martin, and Co.), bankers, and several
other witnesses who had known Mr. Charretie for many I
years, deputed to their belief that he was a man of the
highest honour.
Mr. Hadow, General Parkinson, Mr. Henry, Mr. Holliston,
Mr. Astell, deposed to the like effect in favour of Sir Win.
Young.
Lord Denman then summed up. The high character
which the defendants had received rendered it improbable
that they would commit such a crime, but could not prevail
against positive evidence of guilt. A great many strong ob-
servations had been made on the evidence. It was clear that
on the facts, Mr. Wotherspoon was in the situation of an
accomplice, and must be corroborated. Another portion of
the evidence, certainly, was presented under circumstances
of novelty. Thej would, therefore, fine consider the
evidence which was neither that of Mr. Wotherapoon nor
dependent on the examinations taken before the secret com-
mittee. (His lordship described it.) No question had been
put to Mr. Trotter whether, in the year 1844, he had heard of
the name of Mr. Wotherepoon, or knew that any such per-
son was in existence. As to examinations at the India
House, he thought there was considerable danger in any
tenon, in a condition of superiority, trusting himself to con-
duct such examinations, and in the magistrate, as in foreign
countries sometimes took place, setting his wits against
the supposed culprit; tad he (Lord Denman) had
often repudiated such a proceeding. But, whether or
not in this case too much acuteness had been exercised, he
must say that the inquiry had been most properly instituted.
II a course of sale and purchase of patronage was not put
down at once no one would be safe, and every man would
be compelled, in seltdefenoe, to resort to similar malprac-
tices. This proceeding before the secret committee must
not be likened to the case of a friendless pauper under a cil-
iation against whom the resources of ingenuity would be ill-
direct"eil ; for Sir Was. Young was a director, and ought to
have been prepared to my, If my name is connected with
anything wrong it is false ; I defy the proof ; I will give
every assistance to it." Besides, he was then aware that
Charretie was endeavouring to concert with Mr. Wother-
spoon a point of apology. It was to have been expected that
such a suggestion would have been received by Sir Win.
Young as an insult scarcely to be borne. The more one
heard of the high character borne by Sir Wen. Young,
the more extraordinary was it that he did not
at once repel the author of tech base proposals,
and give every assistrusos to the committee. Upon
the whole, the inquiry appeared to bias to have been
conducted in a manner not calculated to entrap an innocent
man. It was said his mind was bewildered; but on the 12th
of September be knew of the matter, and he was not exa-
mined until the 21a. Neither was there one single fact
pointed out, or surmised, as having been brought out by the
state of his mind. The examination showed, as the letters
showed, that eo soon as this matter was started, it was pro-
posed by the defendant Charretie, and Sir William Young
c sreentel, to personate, as it were, a former client of Mr.
Wothenpoon. This was, in fact, the fabrication of evidence.
There could be no doubt that Sir William Young, Captain
Chanetie, and Wotoerspoon' had consented to a fraudulent
system of untrue defence. The statement of Wotherspoon
was certainly extraordinary, but the question for the jury was,
whether se much as he supplied to the case for the prosecution
was sufficiently confirmed by those part. of the case and that
testimony which were undoubtedly true. It certainly was
amazing that a person in his situation should not have
known when be put so large a aim of money in the hands
of Mrs. Stewart. teat it was to be applied in some such man-
ner
this. It was also most extr .ordinary that he should
have given the reason be had given for demanding back the I
1,0801. The like remark, applied to his statement, that he
bad not read the whole of the paper, which he had signed
upon honour. Whether. however, they believed Mr. Wo-
therspoon or not, th- re was still a large body of evidence 'or
them to consider. If Charlene was not guilty, Sir W.Young
must be acquitted. If Charretie was guilty, then they must
say whether Sir W. Young was aware at the time of what
Charretie had been doing. Character mast of course be re-
garded in ordinary cases ; but in this case, that which bad
been done contradicted all the notions which these gentle-
men, who bad deposed to the high character of the defen-
dants, entertained about them.
The jury retired, and after some time, returned against
Captain Charretie a gene-al verdict of Guilty, and against
Sir,W. Young a verdict of Guilty on the second count only—
that charging a conspiracy to obtain the appointment by
sale.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nes Pane.—Before Sir P. Pollock, C. 8., and Iced=
special Juries.

ATKINSON V. POCOCK:—RIOKTS 01 RAILWAY SPECULA,
TOILY—This was an action brought to recover forty guinea,
the amount Of deposits upon twenty shares allotted to the
plaintiff in the Macclesfield and Sheffield Direct Railway, of
which the defendant was one of the managing committee.
The prospectus issued by the promoters stated that the un-
dertaking wolid be carried out by a capital of 800,0001., to
be raised in 40,000 shares of 201. each. The plaintiff paid,
on the 18th of October, 1845, the deposits on the twenty
shares allotted to him, and on the 22nd of October he exe-
cuted the necessary deeds. The directors, it appeared, had
advertisements inserted in the newspapers, on the 18th of
October, apologising for having been obliged to disappoint
a hug; number of applicants for shares, and stating
their intention to go before parliament and obtain
the necessary act. Towards the end of that month (the panic
having taken place in the interval) they again advertised
that such was the substantial foandation of their hopes of
the success of their scheme, that they were determined to
apply to parliament; their plans, &c., enabling them to
esemply with the standing orders. At that time, however, it
there were only 19,000 shares allotted and depot s
ym Biala anus
RuNiersythaa "41.estwlitultawir y'Y'en
,gOO ah;eas
Icash, end yestepley mist spe"phwal waTeatirled
respect boa hie depeshaos be bag bees imposed epos by
to
wham mistepresentaelemmied by the Mestere. They
stated they wets capable immgVhis via the steads:6

orders of parliament, whereas the number of share* upon!
which depueits bad been actually paid rendered it utterly
impossible they could beetled, T►e company was dimolved
In April, 1846, when the directors offered to return the
allottecs 21s. • than; that offer was not approved of—one
of the *Routes, a Mr. Pritchard, insisted upon a
searching inquiry, and obtained 30s. a share upon 100 shares,
to prevent hie carrying out the threat he had made. It
was (observed the learned counsel) but reasonable the di-
rectors ►hould have been alarmed at the prospect of an
inquiry, for it could be dearly shown that they had paid nri
less than 7361. to a broker for "rigging the market," and
that, out of the funds eat/elated to their siispesal, they had
paid 3191. to a Mr. Bailey for advertisements connected with
that line, end also, oat of the same funds, 3471. for a similar
claim against another company, in which they were inte-
rested. It could not be denied that those acts, committed
by the promoters and directors, were sufficient to entitle the
plaintiff to sustain his present claim, and vitiated the con-
tract he had entered into by signing the subscribers' and
parliamentary deeds.—Evidence having been adduced in
support of the foregoing facts, as stated by the learned
counsel, Mr. Martin, Q.C., on behalf of the defendant,
Bested that the payment' to Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Bailey
were artal. the 22nd of October, when the plaintiff
executed the deeds.—The Lord Chief Baron interposed at
that stage of the cause, and intimated his opinion that the
plaintiff had no ground whatever of action. Even supposing
the directors h.d misconducted themselves, it could not be
held that the solemn contract entered into by the plaintiff
should be vitiated and rendered fraudulent because the
directors, in certain instance', had acted wrongly. The
plaintiff bad, by executing the contract, given large powers
to the directors : he had empowered them to vary the
amount of 'capital, to alter the number of shares, &c., and
he could not afterwards turn round and nullify that contract
unless he showed a much stronger case than that stated by
his counsel. In fact, he could not succeed unless he showed
that the directors had bean guilty of frauds very little short
of swindling.—Mr. liumfrey sold that Lord Denman and
Mr. Justice Creeswell, a few days ago, in their respec-
tive courts, held the very reverse of the doctrine
then laid down by the learned Lord Chief Baron.
Both those learned judges had ruled, in cases very similar
to the present, that the fraud which was necessary to enable
an allottee to recover back his deposits was no more than
misrepresentation, and that it might be shown to have been
committed by any person for whom the defendant was re-
sponsible.—The Lord Chief Baron said he di.sented alto-
gether from those doctrines. A mere instance of misrepre-
sentation not relating to the whole subject matter of the
contract could not be held to be sufficient to set aside a
deed. The real question here was whether the directors
had on the 22d October, 1845, concocted this railway ac 'neon
for the purpose of fraud, and without having ►ny intention
of going before parliament to obtain an act ? If the jury
were of opinion that the directors intended, in the month
of October, 1845, to go to parliament and carry out their
scheme in a bond fide manner, that action could not be
maintained, and the defendant was entitled to re-
cover. It was right also to say that if any evidence
we. offered of any act of a fraudulent nature to
which the defendant was not • party it should
be rejected ; for no one could be authorised by another
to commit a fraud for him. Evidence of fraud a ould
be direct and positive. He could nut see what fraud there
was in purchasing up shares, or upon what grounds the
directors of • railway company should be prevented from
buying them up. If it was beneficial to the undertaking
generally, surely the plaintiff would be benefited as much
by it as the directors. However, it was a matter not sufficient
to set aside a solemn deed executed by the plaintiff before it
had taken place. Upon looking at the whole case, he
thought the plaintiff could not recover. (Evidence having
been given of the fact! stated on behalf of the plain-
II
tiff, the jury found • verdict fur the defendant.
YAMS O. COBBOLD, M.P.—ANOTIIESI RAILWAY CA•B.—
Mr. Martin, QC., and Mr. Barstow were counsel for the
plaintiff; the Attorney-General end Mr. O'Malley for the
defendant. This was an action also to recover h►ck deposits I
paid by the plaintiff for shares in the Midland and Eastern I
Counties Junction Railway, of which the defendant (who is
member for Ipswich) was one of the acting committee. The
plaintiff paid the deposit' in question on the 16th of October,
1845, and on the 4th of November following signed the ne
cessary deeds. The ground upon which it was sought to
maintain the action was that the plaintiff should have been,
and was not, apprised of the real state of the company's
affairs before he executed the deed ; that the number of
shares allotted and paid upon was much leas than repre-
sented ; and that although the company did in fact go
before the House of Commons and obtain a bill, yet it was
for a different line than that described is the prospectus of
the "cheme in respect of which the plaintiff bad paid his de.
posit. The result, however, was that the bill failed alto-
, nether before the Howe of Lords. The withholding
of these facts was relied on as a fraudulent con-
cealment by the directors, such as to vitiate th, it
contract with the plaintiff as one of the allot-
tees from whom the iaformation had been concealed,
and that he was therefore entitled to recover back the depo-
sits.—The Lord Chief Baron was, however, of opinion vat
the plaintiff had no right to recover. This was a much
weaker case than the laet. In this case there did not appear to
have been any concealment practised by the directors ; they
bad actually not only gone before parliament, but succeeded
in carrying a bill through the House of Commons. The
plaintiff should have asked tor the deed, and satisfied himself
before he signed it. The directors weie no: bound to go into
a detail of the affairs of the company to the plaintiff when he
was about to execute the contract. The verdict should,
therefor", be for the defendant, but he should ask the jury
whether they thought any fraud had been prsctieed upon
the plaintiff by the directors.—The jury answered that
qaution in the negative, and returned a verdist for the de-
fendant.