The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

UAW 3intelligence.

ILOCSE OF LORDS.-YESTERDAY.

Inc Annum:EN RAILWAY COUraNT c.
This is an appeal from an interlocutor of the first divi-
eon e.f the Court of Semion in Seotland. The appellants
ate the Aberdeen Railway Company, and the respondents
are Join, Thouns, and ivid Blackie, constituting the
firm of Blackie, Washers, merchants, in Aberdeen. Tlie
appellants entered inns a contract with the respondents in
February, 1816, to receive from them the supply of a cer-
tain quantity of mate Hale for the permanent way of the
railway, and on their refu-b g to fulfil that contract an ac-
tion was rained ag %lost the appellant., to which they
pleaded that as Thomas Mashie, one of the partners, was at
the time of the making of the contract, a director and
chairman of the comp soy, the said contract was void under
the tffith and hJth section of the Companies Clauses Conso-
lffiation Aet, which declared "No per-on shall be capable
of beige; a dies eter unless he he a shareholder, nor unless he
be pos.esaed of the prescribed number, if any, of shares ;
and no person holding an office or place of trust or profit
u der the company, or interested in any contract with the
comp is.y, shall be capable of being a director; and no
director shall be c spahle of accepting any other office or place
of trust or profit, under the company, or of being inte-
res'ed in soy contract with the company, during the time ,
he shall lie a director. And that if any of the directors, at
any time sulwerpiently to his election, accept or continue to
hold any other office or plisse of trust or profit under the
coneb toy, or be, either directly or indirectly, concerned in
any r attract with the company, or participate in any man-
ner in the profit, of any work to be dome fur the company,
or if such director at any time crane to be a holder of the
prescribed number of shares in the emptily, then, in any of
the caste aforesaid, the totfize of director shall become
vacant, and thenceforth he shall cease from voting or
action as a direcsor.•• There was no dispute about
Isfr. Thomas Blackie being a partner in the con-
tractaa firm ; and he, in fact, resigned his office of
director of the company in consequence of the mak-
ing of the contract. The appellants in the court below
maintained that the effect of the statute was to destroy and
rends r void any contract in which a director might be con-
• errned. and that it could cot be enforced. On the other
band, the respondents contended that the act only pro-
hibit. d toe of any contract with a company by a
director, and that the effect of his dciog so was to vacate
his office of director, and top his voting or acting in
that capacity. The court below was of the latter opinion
and pronounced an interlocution accordingly. The present
appeal was then brought, and having been very elaborately
argued, on the grounds above stated,
The Lord Chancellor postponed the further consideration
of the case.
Ihe rest of the day was occupied with the commence-
ment of the opening of :a case of " Ranger v. Great Wes-
tern Railway Company," which was argued some time
since before the house, but which it has become necessary
to hove reheard, in consequence of no judgment having
been u.ven by Lad Cottenham, by whom it was originally
laud. It is expected to occupy some time.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—TF-siEuDAT.
imam a Burn.—ligrosa Logo Cogrinz, XL JtencE
SIDON, AND /i/. 7rmca (.11011111011.

BATAILD V. HAWLS..-il

COXP
tiis
Lord Campbell delivered judgmeat in this matter. Ile
said that in this ease the plaintiff and several other persons
bad jointly employed Mr. Bailey, a civil engineer, to do
certain works for an intended railway. Mr. Bailey having
done the work, sued the plaintiff in the present action for
the ninount of his bill, and recovered the amount. Mr.
Batard then brought this action to recover from the defendant,
else of the persons who had joined in enraging Bailey, his
blare of the amount which the plaintiff had had to pay to
that gentleman. Upon the trial the jury found that
12 person., including the plaintiff and defendant, joined in
esseging Mr. Bailey, some of whom were dead at the time
of the payment by Batard to Bailey. The defendant, con-
tending that he was liable to pay only 1-12th of the amount
received by Mr. Bailey, paid that sum into court; the plain-
tiff, however. claimed flee contributors only being
hit alive. '!he question, therefore, was, whether the
ameiunt to be recovered was to be calculated according to
the original number of joint contributors, or according to the
Danaher of those who were alive at the time of the Payment
made by Mt. Batard. The point was one of considerable
doubt, and, otter much deliberation, the court had come to
the conclusion that the rule, in conformity with the
anti:uritha and the principles of law, was to look at the
number of original joint contractor, to determine the ali-
quot part of each contributor. The defendant, having paid
into court a sum sufficient to cover the amour.t payable by
each of the original contributor, the rule to enter the ver-
dict for the defendant mast be ade absolute.

Rule absolute.
TIIE O. MOrNT.—CII.IIIINAL IN7OII3IATION.—AIe
1.1t...1K0 PI1411:Ulf ANSOIIi AN ELacitox Comm:wan.
An application was made by Mr. Welaby on behalf of the
Atternep•Ceneral for a criminal information against the
shore defendant, in respect of alleged perjury committed by
him before one of the election committees of the House of
Commons. It did not transpire before which of the com-
mittees the alleged perjury was committed.
The defendant, a common labouring man, appeared upon
the floor of the court, and pleaded " not guilty."
The Clerk of the Crown then said that the Attorney-
General joined issue thereon, and that the tune would be
tried at the sittings after this term.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YunaDAT.
tienv,o, RAttis.-4ice Cam 'MILS aMill• Mb Jon=

—flicWilth:Pierses—Ciiirisir, isil-Ni: JeTirieWlAareinub.
lizacoul v. PARSONS.THR DIVNICIPLL CORPOBATIOI

ACT.

The question raised in this action was, what was the ese.
stns.:ion to be placed upon the 92nd sect.
Corporations Act, and the matter CAMS Na the epistia of
the court upon a special cm=
The facts were shortly that. The elipiellea et Gimes-
esd became indebted to the phietilf upset bead beim the
passing of the Municipal Osity===== A" bet meat the
passing of that act a sum of army home dee wpm the
bond, and the plaintiff brought an action to recover it. The
proceedings went on, until a writ of Omit was isitaade
and on the inquisition under that writ it appeared that a
lease of a ferry had been granted by the Ordnance to the
corporauon of Gravesend, which ferry they had sub•leued,
and the sub-lease had become vested in the defendant.
Under these circumstances, the question arm whether that

lease having been acquired by' the corporation since the
posing of the Municipal Corporations Act, their rights in
It could be taken in execution upon a judgment obtained
after that act had paned, but founded upon a bond given
before it passed.
The Court was of opinion that the rights of the corpora-
tion in this ferry were not seizable in this action, and that,
therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Judgment for the defendant.

LIMNOS AT Pig' PIM D, MIDDLNALT.-BATOII ILL JCITICII
WILLIAMS AND • CONDON
WENTTAN r.

This was an action to recover damages fora libel, and the
only plea was not guilty.
The plaintiff is a gentleman of fortune residing at Burdon
Boum, Peckham, and the defendant is • gentleman 82 years
of age, and he resides in the same neighbourhood. In
November, 18W, the defendant took a house of the plaintiff,
and occupied it until June, 1851. Unfortunately, the de-
' fendant had a housekeeper who, from her conduct, became
such • serious annoyance to him that he wu unable to
remain in the house, and it was agreed that he
, should reside with the plaintiff, and pay for his
board seventy-nine unds per annum. Things went
on very comfortably fur some time, but it June, 1851, the
defendant became distatitfied, and left the house. Some
time afterwards he wrote a letter to Ides. Wenman, plain-
* tiff's wit,', in which he stated among other things that he
was " sorry to experience that your husband flu acted so
inconsistent to what ho protected to be, for Mr. Wenman
has rot only taken my memorandum book, but he has also
managed to unlock my box, and extract four receipts for
▪ and and lodging ;" and the writer went on to say that if
the plaintiff did not retut n them, he (the defendant) should
not thil.k he was going out of the path of duty in exposing
him. This was the libel complained of.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 20s.

BAIL COURT.-YESTERDAY.
AT Paas.—Brroas Wwirnstai AND
COYIOO2I al I. um.

COSMO AND ASUIIIZIt V. HADEN. -ACTION TOL
Tan? Ass.

This was an action to recover componaation in damages
for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the
alleged trespass of the defendant in the plaintill; rooms, and
also for fastening up the plaintiff.' coal cellar.
It appeared that the plaintiffs were slaters, and took
apartments in the defendant's house in 18.51, where they
Lad remained until March 29, 1843. The defendant had
done everything she could to annoy them. She had put a
man of the name of Frank, a donkey driver in Hyde Park,
into their room, where he remained all night, smoking sad
using disgusting language, and then by the direction of the
defendant he had removed their goods into another room.
Witnesses having been called to support the plaintiff.'
Mr. Fury, fee 'he defendant, said that this ease had been
got up by the attorney, and that if the jury gave any da-
mages it would go into his pocket.
The learned Judge having summed up,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—dantaser ass
farthing.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YzenaDAT

trrnaz ?in Cuter Cosrmiworma.
IN Till MATTIS or CLIAIILLS STILANO.

This insolvent, whose ease was heard oa Friday before
lie. Cnrataisaioner Phillip, appeared for judgment. H.
had be, a in partnership with a prison carom' Kerr, sad
►ad advertised very Imply, owing now a large mat to
mewspaprn for advertiermeate is the United Kingdom.
Mr Mazwill, an advertising agent, oppo►ed, sad com-
plained that the Miolvent, ksiswiag his means, was not jllll.
Itai.d in adv. di log 1.11 the meaner be had done, and intim-
Mai; s large debt.
Sir. Ci.oke to-,' ay. on the part of the insolvent, called the
Mt, shoo of I 'O. Ct.ranstsmotier to the facts of thefts,.
• suLgaitt. GtD.. V ere was ii,t'ttlig is the ease to call for
em .dvisee .•nt

JaL. Lour coacomd, sad diacha.-sed the
18-1,44 t.