The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-23 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-YESTEADA v.

.. -
The learned judinis preeeat to-day were Lord Chief
Justice Jervis, the Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Mr. Baron
Alderenn, Mr. Justice Williams* Kr. Baron Parke, Mr.
Baron Platt, Mr. Justice Talfourd. and Mr. Baron Martin.
TIII ■AITIIK ASCHIPILAOO COMPANY V.

JVDONIINT.

la this cue a scire facial had been brought at the instatu
of Sir James Brook*, to repeal the charter incorporating
this company. The charter directed that the comparey
atimild not begin business well three of the directors had
certified to the President of the Board of Trade that at
least one•half of the capital had been subscribed, and that
at least 50,0001 had been paid. The charter contained a
proviso, that in cue the corporation rhould not comply
with the directions of the letters patent, it should be lawful
for the Queen, by any writing under the great seal or sign
manual, to revoke the charter. There was a suggestion in
the deelaratioe in the Wire facial, which was at the ill twn
of a private prosecutor, that before the ocespany bums
busine‘s a certifiable wee given by the directors that
91,000 f. had bees paid ail, but that this suggestion was
false to I.i. knowledge. This sugg stion was traversed, and
was trial in the Court of Queue Bench, when a verdict
tell found foe the sums. • rusk nisi was then obtained
td arrest the Judgment, cm Me ground that the
declaration did Dos 1110 W that the Quin bad by writing

111114 ff the .coat WA Of 3400 mutual revoked %Ise charter
The then A....„, 7
...I $ ,t,ietior Otmeral (s.r F. 'P: stave
and air F. Kelly;, Mr. M Hill, and Mr. Willes showrd
ruby's...just the rule; and Mr. Crowder. Mr. Wets: m, Ord
Mr. M. Smalls sopport‘d the rule. Lord Campbell nod Mr.
Ju,tke Wt.dt.intia were of o, i i 412 t'at the tsp....to-it
p oirrr ressi..ed ny tte ch dor to revoke it o hol y or io
tart was in addition to, and consistent with, the implied
right of the crown, to revoke it by scire fatties. or breach of
a condition sub 'Tient ; that there was no distinction in
this tea -tect b.ttween a Vire' faci is bye private prosecutor
to the name of and with the consent of the crown and one
at the instance of the crown, and that the declaration in the
Hire facias was sufficient. Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr.
Justice Erie dilfsred loon the other judges, and were of
opinion that the eayress power to revoke superseded the im-
plied powers of revocation, and that it was nee-nary that
there should be a revocation by writing under the great seal
or sign mammal, for this condition hr ikon before any
seine tidies. Lord C totpht-11 then stated, as the court was
equally divided, he presumed there would be judgment for
the crown, rut the mstter might go before a Court of Error.
A. writ was accordingly brought to this court some months
since cod was then argued, the court reserving judgment.
This morning the learned judges delivered judgment
seriatutn, as Mr. Bares Parke did not concur in opinion
with the other members of the court. . .

Mr. Baron Martin said the real question wee whether or
not there bad been on the part of the directors a misusing
or abuse of the privilege they had obtained. He was of
opinion that there was. The record showed that 50,000!.
Itiould have been certified to the Board of Trade as
basin been paid up, and half the capital sebecribed. That
condition bad net been complied with, and the directors
had falsely certified that it bad. The charter was, therefore,
annulled, and in his opinion judgment should pus for the
Crow..

Mr. Justine TaHoard and Mr. Justice Williams expreued
similar opinions.
Mr. Baron Platt held that the payment of the 50,0001.
was a c3ndition, the non. performance of which vitia'ed the
charter. This proviso bad not been introduced with the
view of abridging the rights of the crown, and the remedy
by rein ferias remained. The judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench should therefore be Banned.
Mr. Baron Alderson was of the taw opinion.
Mr. Baron Parke was of opinion that the charter had not
been forfeited, and that judgment should have been given
for the plaintiffs in error (the company) oa both points. He
considered the crown did not intend to give itself, by the
introduction of the proviso, as additional rimed, for the
repeal of the charter. The object of the crown was to en-
' ercise a discretion in sleeking the charter, or not, or in re-
voking it absolutely or conditionally as it thought tit. In
his opinion the plaintiffs in error were entitled to judgment,
and thojudanient of the Court of Queen's Basch should be •
reversed.

The Lord Chief Baron agreed with the majority of the
court, that the judgment of the Clout of Queen'► Bench
should be oonfirmed, for the reason► given by his brother
Wightinan in the court below, malady, that the subscription
of half the capital was a condition in the charter, and that
condition had been violated. The proviso mot be construed
ea not annulling the power of the mown, but as adding
thereto as a cumulative remedy in case of any breach of
the charter. The condition had been broken, and any of
her Majesty's subjects had a right to bring the matter before
a court of law by a mire f►cies. Judgment ►hould therefore
be given in favour of the court below.
Lord Chief Justice ;Jervis was also of opinion that the
judgment of the Queen's Bench should be affirmed. The
directors availing themselves of their corporate capacity,
had made a false representation to the crown, through its
officer, and abused that capacity, thereby laying themselves
open to a seize facia,. Oa the other point he was also of
opinion that the judgment should be confirmed, as the pro-
viso was intended to confer on the crown an additional
remedy. But there was also higher ground on which the
judgment should be affirmed ; if the proviso fettered the
right of • party to proceed by wire facia, it would in his
opinion be illegal and therefore void.
Judgment for the crown, confirming the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YgrreaDAY.

lIIITIINNI w

♦ COMMON