The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-23 00:00:00

tabu intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—MAsat 22.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
RE CACHAI COMPANY (LIMITED)-LACIRENCeR CASE.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor Wood, refusing an application on the part of Mr.
Laurence to remove his name from the list of contribu-
tories to the above company. The ground upon which
the application was made was variance between the pro-
spectus and the memorandum of association.
Sir R. Palmer and Mr. Waller appeared for Mr. Lau-
rence in support of the appeal ; Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and
Mr. B. B. Rogers for the Cachar Company.
Their lordships dismissed the motion.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir H. Malins.)
RE OVERENI), GURNEY, AND COMPANY (LIMITED).
This was an adjourned summons from chambers on the
question whether a contributory was liable to pay interest
on the call made in July The call was made payable
on the 28th of September. Some of the parties had paid ;
and application was made in chambers, on the 15th of
March,that those who had not paid should be charged with
six months' interest. One of the articles of association
provided that calls in arrear should bear interest at the
rate of not less than 5 per cent.; and under that authority
the application was made. On the other hand, certain of
the shareholders contended that that clausecame to an end
by the order for the winding up of the company. The
decision of the Vice-Chancellor in chambers was, that
shareholders in arrears of call should pay the interest,
they having as members of the company contracted to
do so.

Mr. Swindon, on behalf of Mr. Lintott, in whose case
the point was raised, said he would not re-argue the
ground of fraud, but only proposed to put in evidence
against the propriety of any call, in order that the whole
question might be raised upon appeal.
The Vice Chancellor, having decided in favour of the
call, declined to take any evidence upon that point.
Mr. Swanton proceeded to contend, on the question of
interest, that in the case of a voluntary winding up,
under supervision, all that the court had power to do was
to enforce the acts of the official liquidator, and that the
official liquidator in this case not having made a call for
interest, his honour had no power to direct interest to be
paid. The directors were at an end, and therefore every.
thing which the articles of association authorised them to
do ceased to be in force. But even if the articles remained
in force they had not in this instance been complied with,
inasmuch ea twenty-one days' notice had not been given of
the demand for interest.

Mr. Roxburgh, for the official liquidator, said the ques-
tion was not whether the liquidators had made a adl with
interest, butwhcther the shareholders were to pay interest
upon a call made. The 75th clause of the act declared
the call to be a specialty debt, and it would therefore bear
interest as a matter of course, the liquidator having given
notice at the time the call was made that interest at the
rate of 5 per cent. per annum would be charged if the
money was not paid on the day named. The court had
power to enforce the debt with all its consequences, and
the liquidators might, instead of adopting this summary
process, have sued at law, in which case damages would
have been given in the shape of interest.
The Vice-Chancellor had no doubt about the justice of
the liquidator's demand, because the principle was that all
should contribute equally, and if it Will unjust for Mr.
Lintott topay interest, surely interest ought to be returned
to those who had already paid their calls. He considered
that the contract into which members of the company had
entered with regard to interest on unpaid calls was still in
force, notwithstanding tha winding-up order, and that the
court was armed with the power of compelling payment.
This was an unworthy attempt to escape liability, and be
should order the payment of the call with interest of 5
per cent. from the 15th September, and the costa of the
adjournment of the summons into court.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
MARCH 22.
(Before the Judge Onlinary.)
Boor T. Boor (cLraml.

After our report left yesterday, the following witnesses
were called

Dr. Smith, of Camborne, in Cornwall, said he was the
father of the petitioner. Had known the respondent from
his childhood. When she married, witness a slaughter was
nineteen. Witness had made the respondent advanoes,
amounting to several thousands of pounds. Hail remon-
strated with him upon his frequent applications, but still
he supplied bins with hundreds of pounds. In 1865 witness
received information which induced him to send for his
daughter home.
' ' .

Jane Dunstan, who was servant at the parsonage from
1860 to 1864, raid that Eliza Brinton came in 186:3. Re-
spondent paid her a great deal of attentioo. He used to
sit up with her for an hour after the family had gone to
bed. Once saw the respondent in Mize's bedroom. She
had only her under garments on.
Cross-examined—Did not tell her mistress, because she
did not wish to make her unhappy.
Mr. John Boyes Itlakie, hotel keeper, Argyle-square,
Kirg's-cross, proved that in 18& the respondent brought
Eliza Brinton to witness's house and represented her to be
his daughter. They passed by the name of Webster.
Stephanie Haas, chambermaid at the Hotel de l'Europe,
Havre, gave similar evidhnce es did Mrs. Elizabeth
Cooke, a lady housekeeper at Brighton.
In his defence, Mr. Boot protested that he was not
guilty, and that Eliza Brinton was a poor fatherless girl,
in whom he had taken an interest. He called
__

Eliza Brinton herself, who said she was now 17 years of
age, and was only 13 when she went to the parsonage.
Mr. Boot was verry much attached to her, and frequently
kissed her in Mrs. Boot's presence. She called him
" papa," by his direction. (Witness used this term in her
evidence.) She had previously called him " Ebbie." She
had asked him for some other name than "My dear
minister." It was short for Webster. She swore
positively that not the smallest impropriety had ever
d between them. She had first changed her girl's
frock for a woman', dress at Christmas, 186.1. She was
then at Kew. " Pipe" bought her clothes for her. Was
examined by Dr. Meadows in October, 1863. " Papa"
took her, and witness herself desired it. Mr. Boot went
to America for • short time, and while he was away he
wrote twice or three times to her. Had destroyed his
letters. Never kept her letters. He had come home
on purpose to answer this charge. When he returned to
England he came to her mother's and stayed there
for three weeks. Then he went to stay at the house of
one of his fparishioners. Was now at school. "Papa"
had sent her to three schools. Was at • school at Brill,
near Oxford, for a quarter. Learned French and music
and drawing. Did not know what it cost. Mr. Boot paid
her school bills, and came to see witness several times..
After leaving Brill, Mr. Root took her to London. They
stayed a day or two at Thomas's Hotel, in the Strand.
Then he took her to Dudley. Sometimes he gave her a
few shillings for pocket money. He always bought
her dresses. After Christmas last he brought her to
London, and they lived in lodgings at 22, Waterloo-
road. Went once with him to Drury-lane Theatre. After-
wards went to a school at Nuneaton. " Papa" paid, of
course. Remained there till witness came up to this trial.
" Papa" brought her. They were staying again in Water-
loo-road. Was going hack to the school again. Only slept
in the same room with the respondent twice—once at
Cheltenham and once at Havre. They were double-bedded
rooms, and there were no others to be had.
. .

Re-examined by the respondent—Yot7Went to America
in February, 1866, end returned in April. While you
were away I stayed for five weeks at the house of a clergy-
man.

By the Judge—My mother is a widow supported by my
brother. When Mr. Boot came to our house I slept with
my mother and little enter; and Mr. Boot with my
brother.

Mr. Boot said that if he had had any improper inten-
tions while travelling on the continent, he might easily
have passed off Miss Brinton RS his wife ; and he there-
fore called upon the jury to believe that the story he bad
told was true. He appealed to them also, whether a man
who felt himself guilty, would have taken the trouble to
cross the Atlantic at the season of the equinoctial gales,
for the express purpose of meeting such a charge. He
admitted that he had not been blameless, but the fact was
his mind had become unhinged by pecuniary embarrass-
ments occasioned by what he had spent upon the schools
of his parish ; and being unfit to travel alone, he had
taken with him this poor child, who had always been
called in his house his daughter, and whom he had sent
to school to be educated for a nursery governess. The
interest he had taken in her arose from her having injured
her health in attending upon a little boy he hail lost. He
bad thereupon promised to put her in the place of thechild
who had been taken from him. He had done no more
than he had promised her dying father ; and if he had
deserted her he should have been undeserving of the
name of a man, much lees of a Christian. He implored
the jury to acquit him foe the sake of an aged mother, to
whom an adverse verdict would probably be instant
death ; and to hesitate before they sent upon the world
an innocent child branded with an offence which blood
itself could hardly wipe out.
The Queen's Advocate having replied,
The Judge Ordinary observed that if the evidence of
Mks Milton was false, the respondent would have done