The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIt3 DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings is Benno. —(Before—Lord- Chief Justice Cockburn and
Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
THE QUEEN V. TRAIN AND OTHERS.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., said he was instructed to
mention the case of the Queen v. Train and another, which
was an indictment for a nuisance inflaying down a tramway
from Westminster-bridge to Kensington. Mr. Train and
his managing man were found guilty, and with
regard to the other defendants, certain vestrymen
of Lambeth, the verdict was suspended, with • view of en-
abling them to make application to this court on cer-
tain points of law with reference to their liability.
The Court bad granted • rule in their favour,
which had placed the prosecutor in • difficulty in bring-
ing Mr. Train and his managing man up for judgment. His
application was that as the jury found this was • dangerous
nuisance, and as every day accidents occurred, the court
would allow him to bnng up Mr. Train for judgment and
hear the rule obtained by the other defendants at the same
time.

Mr. Justice Crompton said he thought it would be
both a troublesome and difficult thing to give two judg-
ments. Why had not the parties adopted the suggestion
thrown out when the rule was obtain( 1 to enter a nolle
presage', with the Attorney-General's permission?
Mr. Chambers said he must meet it this way. Mr. Train
might not be in a position to pay the oasts he would have to
pay. His iostructions went to this, that the delinquent
vestrymen, if they would pardon him for using that
term, had received I,COOL to indemnify them against
the costs they might have to pay. If, however, they could
be induced to pay that amount over to the prosecutor ft
might alter the matter. The matter of the indictment
did not arise out of any dispute between the vet.
trymen, but it was preferred by a gentleman
of position in consequence of the nuisance being
so serious as to occasion nearly daily accidents. He
rsked to be allowed to give notice to the vestrymen to
come up and support their rule at the same time that Mr.
Train came up for judgment. The vestrymen who made
the contract with Mr. Train stipulated that Mr. Train
iould remove the tramway on receiving three
months' notice to do so. The majority will not give that
notice, and if the prosecution were to enter a collo proemial
there would be no means of getting rid of the nuisance.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that Mr. Train was bound to
remove it without regard to that notice.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it appeared to him it was a
question of vestry triumph with regard to costs.
Mr. Chambers said Mr. Train was an American, and might
return to that country any day, in which case the prosecutor
would lose hie code.

The Lord Chief Justice said he thought the learned
counsel must be under the necessity of briogiug Mr. Train
up for judgmeat irrespective of the rule referred to.
Mr. Chambers said there was some doubt entertained in
the Crown-office that that course could be pursued. Re
thought it could.
Application refused.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Pane.)
IN RI TIM DISTILICT BAVtNOB BA= (LIIITT/D).
This was the adjourned sitting for settling the list of con-
tributories. At the last sittings question was raised whether
certain gentlemen, Messrs. Begthawe, ld'Adatn, Pepper,
and Ridge, who bad been directors of the Life Assurance
Treasury, and who in that character had recently conducted
the business of the District Savings Bank, should be placed
on the list of oontributories.

Mr. Bagley, Mr. RO-11;c7rgh, Mr. Doris, Mr. R. Cecil Aus-
tin, Mr. Lowrance, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brough, and other pro-
fessional gentlemen, represented the different portico in the
MSC.

His Hamra now said that be should act in accordance
with the view expreesed by the Master of the Rolls in the
case of the Deposit Bank, and hold that the gentlemen
referred to must be placed on the list as contributories,
each for the number of shares (300) which were nquired
to qualify them as directors.
Mr. Roxburgh proposed to proceed with the names in
list B—those:who had not anything paid in respect of their
shares.

The names were gone through seriatim. Many of them
were persona evidently in humble circumstances, holders
of one, two, or five shares.
Mr. Dorn: objected to the name of T. F. Appersoo, of
Birmingham, being placed on the list, on the ground that
there had been no acceptance of shares.
Mr. Itozburgh relied onthe register of shareholders,which
was produced.
Mr. Doria took objection that the occupation of Mr.
Apperson was not stated, and that consequently the regis-
ter was informs/.

His Honour said that, in the absence of any evidence
to the contrary, he should hold that the entry by the
proper officer in the book of the company wu conclusive.
Mr. Doris. said that Mr. Appenoo was not present, or he
would have been prepared to swear that he did not accept
the shares.

The Onenmissioner—lf he is dissatisfied with my decision,
let him appeal.
Mr. Dona—But to do that will cost him 501.—t0 save the
beee
Mmtrltathslere—mwris.t 51.—which
anan absu
acceptalY.nce intwhriasit writing, or some-
thing equivalent to it.
Hu Honour adhered to his decision, which governed
several other cases.

---.—
This list included the names of 143 contributors—one of
whom, Mr. H. W. Knight, of Walworth, was placed on the
list for 1,706 shares ; Mr. Graham, of Portsmouth, for 1,000
shares ; sad Mr. G. H. Law, for 1,000 shares.
Schedule C was then gone through, embracing the names
of those who bad paid something as deposit on their shares.
George Claudius Nash, of Mile-end, objected to his name
being placed on the list for twenty-five shares. He stated
that some three years ago he applied for a loan, and not
being a householder he was told he must pay a shilling
inguu7 fee. He did so, but the loin was not panted.
He bad never hadany other connexion with the
company, and he ought not to be bamboozled out of his
money in that way.
The minutes of the company being produced, it appeared
that there was a regular entry of the transfer of the shares
from Mr. Scurr to Mr. Naih.
Hie Honour held this conclusive, and placed the name on
the list.
Mr. Nicholls, printer, was placed on the list for 2,020
@bares. He alleged that be bad been induced 'a take the
shares by the promise of having the printing of the company;
but this he had only had to the extent of 2CX; and it wan
contended that he was only liable for that amount.
His Honour held that he was liable for the full amount.
Any remedy that he might have must be sought elsewhere.
ec
Alfred Pierrepont objected to being made a contributory
for 70 shares, sod es. that he had only applied for 60.
He only got certificates (or 60 shares. Be thought that
was enough money to lose. (Laughter.)
Placed on the list for 60 shares.
Walter Palmer, • holder of one share, pleaded infancy.
It appeared that he bad obtained a loan of V. from the
society when he was 19 years of age, and bad then agreed
to take one share. He was now of age.
Hie Honour said he most be retained on the list.
William Trenoard, a local agent to the company at Mile.
end, who was said to be • holder of 265 shares, objected
that he had only applied for ICJ shares, but the register
showing the larger number, it was held conclusive.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holmyd.)
IN RI PETER WORRISON.-TRE DEPOSIT BANE.
This was • motion, under the 139th section of the new
act to remove Mr. Bennett, one of the trade intrigues.
Mr. Sargood appeared in support of the motion; Mr.
Dowse, for Mr. Bennett, consented to it; Mr. Bagley ap-
peared for Mr. Collingwood, the other assignee. It we.
stated that Mr. Bennett had made • large claim against the
estate, and his position was to some extent inconsistent with
his retaining the position of assignee.
The order for removal was made, and it was directed that
the costa (except those of Mr. Bennett) should come out of
the estate.