The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

The court was occupied until three o'clock in trying a
Cue of "Kenning v. Buchanan," which was an action for false
imprisonment, brought against an attorney for causing the
plaintiff to be imprisoned for forty days under as order of
committal of the judge of the County Court of London, the
allegation being that that course was pursued at the instance
of the attorney alone, the plaintiff himself, and subsequently
bin losignees (he basing become bankrupt), being unwilling
to pr,ceed to this extremity. The case, howeeer, went off
en a point of line,
Tho next Cant was settled by conseno ; and two undefended
action, boning been tried, the court arose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
_ Sittings in Banco.

DIME, AND ENNISK JUIN RAILWAY COMPANY F.
EDMON DS. —NON-LIABILITY OF /3IIA EA HOLD ERA ITN EN
TUB EPA; -.TER IC NOT SEALED BEFORE C A LL. —Thii
was an action brought to recover 22.51., alleged to be
due from she defendant, as the proprietor of 60 shares in the
compeely suing. At the trial before Lord Chief Justice
Denman. at the licit Surrey Assizes, it wet prayed that the
def ndlet. having bought the scrip certificates for 50 shares,
duly ,t to be registerei as the proprietor of so many
elf ay., ••i the books of the come-any, pursuant to the set.
Thu clam' woo made by letter, and hit name was accord-
ingly eetered in the draft register of the proprietors, when
the certificate of registration was given to his agent.
At that time the formal register was in course
of preparation. for the purpose of being sealed,
at the hrst ordinary meeting of the company. In the mean-
time. 1:1,I li.,fisre the seal was attached to the register, a call
for 21. was made. and the register having been duly sealed a
second call woo made in duo time for 21. 10e. .Neither of
these calla living paid this action was brought, and a verdict
having passed for the full amount of both calls this
rule was subsequently obtained to reduce it by the amount
of the first call, on the ground that there was no legal proof
that the defendant was a shareholder at the time of its tieing
made.—Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Petersdorff, and Mr. Edwin
James now showed e .use. The question was whether, by
the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 Viet., c. 16, the '
proof or proprietorship is limited to the productias of the
sealed register. and the entry of the deft ndaet's name theiein
at the date of the coil. It was contended that the enactment
that the production of the peeled register ehould be prinel
facie eleclecce that the parties therein enrolled were share-
holders was rather in ease of the shareholders, and was not
meant to make that fact a condition precedent to the right
to recover calis from them at the suit of the company. It
only made the register primi facie eviderce, and did not pre•
elude the company front the production of ordinary proof of
ownership. Here the defendant had a•terted hie right to be
reeistered in respect of fifty shares, and had received the cer-
thieve . so that there was quite enough to show his owner-
ship without the production of tke sealed register.—Mr. W.
Chambers was stopped by the court, all of whom were una-
nimously of opinion that the entry of the defs ndant's name
as a shareholder n a sealed register of proprietors was a con.
dition precedent to the power of making calls en him. If
they want to make a call they must take care to complete
the register, which is the only legal proof of liability ; and it
is no register at all under the act until it is sealed. The rule
to reduce the verdict by 1001. must therefore be made abso-
lute.—Rule absolute.