The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Bir R. T. Bindersley.)
no ILL SHADWELL WATIMWORPM-711D01[1314
The Shadwell Waterworks, which were esiablidtoa
the reign of Charles 11., and inooTorated by la id at
reign of William 111., had carried on business mote
end of last century. A suicidal competition with oh;
West Rim Company, carried on about the middle cif tio.
century, had led to a decline in their *fairs, sy
appeared that from that time some shareholders asmK
paying calls. The rivalry was put
to by an agreement between the two oom lad it
1794 it was resolved that no proprietor who lato
his calls for 40 years should receive the dividends to trQ
he might be entitled, but that the money ?hewn
in reserve for the decision of a future meeting Thom
only 36 shares in all, and of these the calls hon boo 7,
in respect of 34. In the year 1800 the London Deck
piny obtained their set of parliament, and purekettg
ftadwell Waterworks for 50.000/. The
lug the 34 shares divided 34-36ths of Cr ..000-r"..',
themselves, and a emit having been institute/IR
reference to the other two shares, 2,7871. 10a, or tail
of the 50,0001., was paid into court and invested la )
in the then low state of the funds in 5,0001. Commis.
aim had since been accumulating, and now sesmand
upwards of 40,0001. A petition was presented in Ise,„
determine who was entitled to this, and isquhtt.....
directed in chambers. The matter came before tat
upon the chief clerk's certificate. The rep
the thirty-four shareholders claimed that the feed wind
be divided rateably among them, but naiad then a chat
was set up in respect of one of the other two shares Isy sit
Sir tative of John Bweetapple, who it was leo*
foirel rnshare in the company between WM and 1709
Mr. Bally and Mr. George Mimay appeared is
of the petition presented by one of the 34
and Mr. Cotton, Mr. J. Pearson, Mr. Geo. Miller, lit! I
Pontifex, and Mr. Charles Brown appeared fur the 05...
claimants for the 34 shares ; Mr. Darnel and Mr. Bewi7
represented the claimant in respect of Sir Jolts gist r
apple's share.
The Vice-Chancellor considered that the fact dr 4 '
ministration baying been taken out till the War iio g 4
the estate of Sir John Sweetapple, who died is 1711,e0t '
almost conclusive that he died insolvent ; and these
- ;
strong probability that, wanting money for hie beau",
a banker and goldsmith, he parted with hie ohms it ty
waterworks, which must have been worth at ths tit
something like 1,3001. As, however, there was es emu .•
the advertisement of the namesof shareholders ia gm
cony, Itiohsrd Boddington being printed for Be**
Icourt could not proceed to administer the fend MI tut
mutely accurate list had been published.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Justices Blackburn aed Lk)
=PARTS marmot:um BORTHWICL
This wee a ease of very considerable
reference to the power of the Lord Mayor Zliass h
kisma
of the City over stookirrolues.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Remake rua
for a rule calling upon the Lord Mayor and
City of London to show cause why a mandamus abeam sat
issue commanding them to admit Mr. Borthwiek s Veda
of the Cit 7 of London. The question in dame
whether besides the usual personal bond of 1,0001, fuel
into by a stock broker the corporation bad parr r
demand a bond from securities as to the
hFitarina
once of the duties of a stockbroker. The wt
not madefrom anplifficulty Mr. Borthwick of firlagna
required securities but it was made in his name ea lad
of the committee of the Stock Exchange in order a Ma
the question whether in law the corporation bad peu
under the 6th of Anne to make ouch a rue or replan,
That act empowers the corporation, in referable to
when they admit them, to admit them " nada Na 16
strictiona and limitations for their honest and good Nor
viour as that court (the Lord Mayor and Aldersm(id
think fit and reasonable." In February, 1865, the Cep
ration reviewed their rules and regulations Mill nie
voce to brokers, and by them they now require sae.
brokers as well as other brokers to disclose their pan
pals in a bought note within a certain time, sad Min
enter into two sureties of 21'07. each. The Ms •to
disclosing the principal was clearly illegal, beau
the first place, it could not be complied with;
secondly, that in law a stockbroker was liable mum
tract as the principal.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that rule could selybe pt
over and complied with. With regard to the seenitm
there might be a difference of opinion u to its mama,
but he was inclined to think that as the act Preto
corporation full power to make rules and rephneaske
the government of stockbrokers, it could not be said fiat
it was not a fair, proper, and legal regulation. As to as
expediency of the rule, that might be a very good ago
meat for the Lord Mayor and corporation.
Mr. Justice Mellor—You say that they cannot isms
conditions which involve a bearing upon anotba pew!
Mr. Mellish—Yee. They might make roles to pod
against improper behaviour in discharging the dates d a
broker.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—Can we say that this is a
improper restriction or limitation in the discharge els
stockbroker's burliness ? I think not.
Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Bitting@ in Banco.—(Before Justice* Welles, Bike, sed
Smith.)
TOTTERDELL B. THE PAIRHAM BRICK AND TILL COMBS
(LIMITED.)
The defendant's company was formed for the per
of making bricks and tiles out of a bed el tew
clay, and seven persons signed the memorandum el
association. The act of parliament said tkat sad
directors were appointed the subscribers of the ne
morandum of association should be deemed to be ins
tors. Messrs. Brace and Ponsonby, two of the mews
sons, engaged the plaintiff as foreman and managers/1W
company, and he now sued to recover the wages dw
him. At the trial before Mr. Justice Bylee, the valet
was for the plaintiff, 18/.
Mr. Pope now moved for a rule for a nonsnit sad et
tended that the arrangement made by Mesas. &swag
Ponsonby was not binding upon the company.
The court held that the plaintiff having been enSBl4l.l,
two of the subscribers to the memorandum to the Milk
tion, to do work which was within the scope of the 0a
templated operation,' of the company, there was I loni
facie case for the plaintiff, and therefore the defewinit
were not entitled to a rule.
Rule refused.