The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-14 00:00:00

XRDICM!...

Zara. COLLZOI Or thosetew.-Whe—telholdht}lestees hetthlt
volereene the seeenery ssenislins ft apeman We wi
les were admitted henbin ho II& Yet, AL, Mews. J. B.
=Gramme; O. KM^ Itaftert, Wets. W. P. lienlego,
; T. Mk theft.' lbw. Mins I G. Pane s. @soften,
loasesides; P. hitiono. Imam; Monte,
Upper 01=th; O. Pashatts. Ilbudedide: T. Asa, limn;
Upper Redo; C Cieftles. Loft; ads J. Eissard,
lade&
(lemon= losenenser 148 Ilterh-tha neselkw maw et
Edem sod peollenee wee WI el ft Two lig, fitskierso
the a et henles *Weis hr r d
dlib lee
her of Mika= penlieL itassek.
loneter ft ape le he Isesl Weseidwine Opihsiels Thephel,
the Zan et Ibmisay. KO lbw* sod slisr gestinieu. ad.
deer@ dig 1111111d1111 eels ementtes Ins hese@ hr emptier eat
the *het lo new.

SPORTING.
BATH AND BOA! CODNTT yl

lb. 1:ZIO; itakel7t 311274viT.-e-•;2:. it ii.7:111;10-114: -(lTWie.)
Kr. Ornlibe Logy U* MI6 (Main 1
ban. BMW's , IMMO (A. Day 3
Mr.Elmiat The acetlck Irk, Mt Mb (carried Mt 121
(P. Reddy) 3
lis4 ea Miegh7. Woo by four Mectits. Roo la 2 Ella. 4 we.
Ite Welles Sao et IS OM. mob, 10 ft, mad 55 added ; tor 3-yr-
old cal; lit
(A. Ma iiii..ali Mee, Mt U& StralOt balloon*. (10 mats)
Mr.
Ilit
1
Mr. Mee%
DeMlobre 11x1.11x1.aggb
lib (Pori
Dube et Iliimeate !Maw Set Ilb
bebar Sane of II sowt emelt. lb ft. iced 2 only if de-
clared. 'kb 1441441.4; the mood to receive 304 Red Um third to
oto,l2l4Meles. Teo mem sad adl noes. (04 sok 43 at trboei

desloisi.)
Mr. Fifty% MiIS lorro, seed, Tst —(A. Dal:
Mr. Tor's boa tits Moss, 4 yrs, Sat lib (Ityder I
le r. Orsirelle Mensal, e 7n, 4R lib Crtese
Mr. P. Pryoes fosse Mack, 6 )rs, est 11111 (1. gimn- :
Sho hilooloy do nut i—Mlos Mt Mom Wry New
Deer, Morosso. II to Iso Clossost, 3to I opt Mao Pomo sod
to I soot ligissoors. Moo by Ono puts ot a length; Closiest • led
third; nods 4 isle. II sa
orrEuloweas mirax.7-wawsr slam) swim

Mxisscar Dr 0 Ikea Orr of 15 icon lea• It V ankriel by
11 o'clock on Treley nor :—Alecr tt Ilk; SIE 4, 114; wild
Mom. Get OD; .Iloglegell, Or lib; Patriot, 04 116; 211•011 r. 64
Mirky MAI, 1t; IfeemtOdlea, let 121 b Perrot Tot Mb; Tow
Loidorr, ;
74 la Inehroo, 74 111 b; aripie Orroirs,
7ot ID • Okra 7st ; fit. Denotri, 74 10; Jar, =it!
Ifs, 74 elb ; Orter Bow% 74 a;
7et ell; 74; Lesetsed, Dit• Toreall, tet; 01106
74; 04 la; l2ls; lkorkit Lir
reer, at Mb; areolos rok Tai. DerloseCire,
Or; Dr DI; Ilffilltbswiffeh. let ;
Weir Deg, kit Mb. kith% let 0; /001/0% 14 lentroo
he% Ist els• let 0; NONNI% 0116; Set ;
tato Dr As or Da.
11100 ND °MUD PO, 1147.
Moree.—Kren, 300, ki ft. ?JUL Die at Bedford's Weather-
bk opt Kr. IYlkko's he Member. 74 Irk
of
aeon k*
ft. T.Y.C. Yr. awn tarot, 04 71b, art Duke
Botkerre kg Or.
Mlllll, 360, k R AY. Lord leollstos's No o% est 71b, apt ler.
B. Bore', Dohs Goodell,
Tr =MT.-KATO', 00% b ft. D.Y. Mr. Payne'. Cerra, 64 71b,
art Lord Olairoes Der of the Oonad4 by Doo John out of
Orr% est Ob.
141[14 200, It R T.Y.C. Lard Olsegew's Ckrk of the Council eget
Ur. leocre's Urania, 04 71b seep.
FAIDAT.—Kma. 200, bR. D.M. Lord Olsogre• Chsinticanir,
84 710, eget Mr. Gregory's Clermont, tat

Lain Entelltattut.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
AMWAY AND OTHER/ V. PAGE AND OTHERS.:

PaovisToial Coe

MISOONDUCT.—This

was an appeal against a decision of Vies Chancellor
Knight Bruce, overruling a demurrer to the plain-
tiff's bill. The bill stated, moon other things, that
in October, 1846, • company was formed for making a
railway, called " The Midland and Etats= Counties Rail-
way," from Cambridge to Oswestry, 118 miles. with a
capital of 1,500,0001. in 80,000 shares of 261. each share; that
a provisional committee was constituted, end a prospectus
issued by them, and that applications were made to the com-
mittee for shares far exceed the number of 60,000. but
that they did not allot more dos 3.5,800, of which 17,8t0
were sot ,• Wit the isheedpticse ea the shares that
were set betas melleleet le amble the provisional
esmmtllm
titabetbre peritemeat for as set for the whole
line, they for an let for a Ike of thirty-eight miles
only, and as without the consent or even knowledge of
the paerel body of the shareholders who subscribed, on the
smissalanding that all the shares were subscribed as for the
while Ilse; that to enable the committee to comply with

the orders of the Houle of Contemns, they issued shares to
themselves, and a great number of fictitious persons, or
their own nominees; that the bill posed the House of
Commons, but won rejected in the Hems of Loris; that
notwithstanding such rejection, the committee continual,
with the sanction of a majority of shareholder' fraudulently
obtained, to take farther expensive protesdings, with a view
to obtain an eat of parliament sanctioning their said line.
The bill was flied by four shareholders, on behalf of them-
selves, and all the other shareholders of the company, except
the defendants, who were the members of the provisional
committee, mod after charging various circumstances imply-
ing misconduct and fraud on the part of the defendants., it
prayed for an account of the deposits, and that what re-
mained after deduction of the just coots and expenses, up to
the recticia of the bill, might be rateably disrelleet,tl among
the shareholder,.p.id butu f
thato an mingi
ny
po
ecostesdbealilowed to defend-
ants .t of the
which they took
after the rejection of their bill in the House of Lords.
To this bill the defendants demurred cc three grounds first,
for want of equity ; secondly, for want of parties, inasmuch
as all the shareholders were not made parties; and thirdly,
for misjoinder of parties, inasmuch as the majority of share-
holders who sanctioned the proceedings of the defend-
ants had not a community of interest or object with the
other shareholders, including the four whose names appeared
on the bill as plaintiffs, and yet the bill was filed on behsl.
of ell the shareholders except the defendants.—The Vice.
Chancellor having come to the opinion that the plaintiffs
made oat a case for relief against the committee, overrated
their demurrer, and ordered them to answer the bill.—The
defendants brought this repeal against his Honour's decision.
Kr. Speed, hisleader being engaged in another court, stated
the cue fur the appellants, and relied on the second and
third grounds of their demurrer, citing, in support of his
armament the case of " Richardson v. Hastings" (7 Beeves,
301), and observing that his lordship had in the case of
" Wallworth v. Holt" (4 Mylne and Craig, 634) reviewed
all the former cases in the objection for want of par-
ties to a bill like this, but did not retract front them,
or lay down any proposition inconsistent with the validity of
that objection. The eases of " Colburne e. Thomson' " (16
Veiny, 321); the" Widow's" case (cited in 17 Vrecyl6);
and other cases referred to in " Wallworth v. Holt," as ex-
ceptions to the general rule of this court, requiring all per-
sons interested to be made parties to a suit for winding up a
partnership. were not applicable to this case, which was not
• partnership in the ordinary sense, nor had this bill for
its object the winding up of the concern, but to prevent the
committee from having their expenses out of the deposits.
The Vice-Chancellor, in his judgment, said that if he were
to allow the demurrer the complaining shareholders would
be without remedy. Suppose that to be the case, still that
was not a sufficient reason for altering, by a decision o.
this sort, the established rules of practice in courts of equity.
The general orders, fronted in 1841, did alter certain esta-
blished rules with respect to the necessary parties to a cause
in some circumstances, but this case did not fall within
those orders. As to the objection en the ground of Ms-
joinder of plaintiff", there were 96.5 shareholder. not at
all represented in this suit, for they formed the majority
of shareholden who at • public meeting approved of the
proceedings taken by the defendants, and they could not,
therefore, be properly joined with the plaiatiffs who dissented
from the defendants` proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor—The case for the plaintiffs made in
their bill was, that these 965 shareholders did not exist ;
that they were fictitious, or mere nominees of the committee,
to fill up the sum required by the orders of the Houses of
Parliament to be subscribed.
Mr. Speed.—They subscribed the parliamentary contract.
The plaintiff' said in their bill that the names of these
shareholders were unknown to them, but that allegation
could not be admitted, because as they subscribed the par-
liamentary contract and the plaintiffs took or might tate a
copy of it, they could not be heard to allege ignorance of
their names or residences.
The Lord Chancellor said, at the conclusion of 31r. Speed's
argument, that the case appeared clear in the opening of it,
and before he would call on the counsel for the plaint dfs he
would take the bill and read it. If objections such as those
raised by this demurrer, in respect to the want and misjoin-
der of parties, were to prevail, there would he no remedy
for the complainants, but these persons composing the pro-
visional committee would hoid the deposits in their pockets.
But to prevent this, this court would extend the rule
(admitting exceptions to the general nil, of bringing all
persons interested before the court). However, in looking
to the circumstances of this case his lordship was of opinion
that the cases already decided were sufficient authorities,
and that it would not be necessary for him to exten.l the rile.
Mr. Rolt, for the bill, said that the decision of the Master
of the Rolls in the came of "Richardson r. Hastings," referred
I to by Mr. Speed, wadeparted from by the Master of the
Rolle himself on the further bearing of the same case, which
is reported in the same volume (7 Boum, 323).