The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-08 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

MANSION-HOUSE..

A series of three summonses, issued at the instance of
Mr. Thomas Bevan, of 155, Fenchurchetreet, merchant,
against the Egyptian Commercial and Trading Company
(Limited), came on for hearing before the Lord Mayor, and
occupied the court until an unusually late hour.
Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Mr. Sward, of Finsbury.
pavement appeared for the complainant ; and Mr. Murray,
instructed by Messrs. Bircham, Dalrymple, and Drake,
appeared for the defendants, and also for the secretary of
the company, upon whom the summonses had been served.
In opening the circumstances under which the first sum-
mons had been issued, Mr. Metcalfe stated that the pro-
cess had been taken out against the defendants under the
25th section of the Companies Act, 25 and 26 Victoria, cap.
89, for not keeping a proper register of the members of the
company, as well from its original registration up to the pre-
sent time. The application for the summonses had been made
on behalf of Mr. Bevan, who was the holder of 100 shares
in the concern, and who, from certain information he had
received, was desirous of seeing the register to which,
under the 32nd section of the same act, every member or
shareholder was to have access for the purpose of inspw-
tion during business hours at the company's offices. That
access and inspection bad been refused him, and hence the
present proceedings . It appeared that on the 13th, 14th,
and 27th April last Mr. Bevan had applied to see the
books, some of which were shown him by the secretary,
which did not afford him the information which he re-
quired, and was desirous of obtaining ; in fact, the books
produced to him were not prepared and made up in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the act of parliament.
This interview with the secretary took place on the
13th ult., and on the 14th Mr. Bevan again went to the
office of the company, accompanied by Mr. Sward, his
solicitor, and required to see the books, under the 25th
section of the statute 'and only the address-book and some
others were presenter{ for their inspection, but they wholly
failed to afford the information that was desired to be
obtained. In those books there were pencil entries made
some of which were partially rubbed out and obliterated.
On the 27th they went again, and asked to see the share
ledger, which was refused them by the secretary. The act
required that the original shareholdors should be regis-
tered, and the allotment register should be kept ; and
those were not presented for the inspection of the
complainant and his solicitor. This was an offence under
the section of the statute under which the first summons
had been taken out.

Mr. Murray addressed the Lord Mayor for the defen-
dants, remarking that the complainant had not only an-
noyed this company, but had worried others under the sem-
blance of obtaining information. He was a discontented
shareholder, who seemed to revel in these sorts of annoy-
ances. lie (Mr. Murray) should show by the evidence of
the secretary that all the books required by the statute
were shown to him, but the share ledger was refused under
the advice given to the directors by Mr. Drake, the solicitor
to the company.
Mr. Maitland, the secretary of the company, produced
the books, and stated that they were placed on the board-
room table for the inspection of the complainant. These
consisted of the "address book," the original register of
shareholders ; the transfer book, the annual returns made
pursuant to the statute, the numerical registration of
shares, and the call books, two in number.
The witness underwent a lengthy crow-examination by
Mr. Metcalfe, but his direct testimony was in no degree
shaken. . . .

The Lord Mayor, after a minute examination of the
books, and a careful perusal of the section of the act of
parliament, held that the books were in accordance with
the requirements of the law, and therefore his judgment
was that this summons must be dismissed.

Mr. Metcalfe then opened the second summons, which
was based upon another section of the Companies Act of
1862, for refusing to produce the books when required.
The evidence of the witnesses on both sides, taken in
the preceding case, was then read over to them, and in
the end, after a long conflict in examination and cross-
examination,
The Lord Mayor said that though there was a conflict of
evidence, it predominated in favour of the defendants, and
in this case the summons must be dismissed.

The third summons, which was against Mr. Maitland, the
secretary, was then called on. It charged him with re-
fusing to produce the registry of all mortgages and
charges on the company when required by the complainant
to do so. _ _

In this case it was contended that there were no mort-
gages or charges specifically fixed on the resources of the
company, and hence, there was no record or register, and
consequently the secretary could not be responsible.
It transpired, however, from the examination of Mr.
Cator, one of the directors of the company, that debentures
to the amount of 700,0001. had been issued, and these were
chargeable on the capital of the company, which was
2,000,0001. It was admitted that there were no books
recording these charges, and
The Lord Mayor held that this was a non-compliance
with the act, and therefore in this case the judgment must
be for the complainant.
On the motion of Mr. Murray, the Lord Mayor granted
a case for an appeal.
HAMMERSMITH.

Charles Abraham Johnson, a tall, thin young man, who
appeared to have received a superior education, was placed
in the dock, before Mr. Ingham, on a charge of begging.
Mr. Henry Hobart, a gentleman residing at Scarsdale-
terrace, Kensington, stated that on Sunday evening he was
walking through the High-street, when he was accosted by
the prisoner, who asked for his assistance to get him •
night's lodging. He refused, when the prisoner made use
of threatening language towards him. On returning shortly
afterwards the pnsoner accosted him a second time, evi-
dently not recognising him. He again refused, and the
prisoner then declared that be would not walk about the
streets as he had done, and that he would make somebody
give him a night's lodging. Witness communicated with
the police, and the prisoner was taken into custody. He
did not notice that the prisoner was tipsy.
Police-constable 132 J said the prisoner was not sober.
The prisoner's account of himself was that he was the
son of a physician, and that he had come up to London to
be treated for epileptic fits. He bad friends in London,
but did not like to go to them on account of his dress,
he had lost his clothes, and that caused him to

be excited. He begged of his worship to inflict a small
fine, and not to send him to prison, as his brother was
coming to town and would not know where to find him.
Mr. Andrew, the clerk, informed the magistrate that
there had been complaints of a man answering the pri-
soner's description stopping persons in Kensington in
similar manner, and causing them great alarm.
The complainant was recalled, and he stated that the
prisoner stopped him a week ago, shortly after 11 o'clock at
night, in the High-street of Kensington and he then
wanted money for a night's lodging. Not liking his ap-
paranoe, he walked away from him. When he accosted
him on Sunday night he at once recognised him.
Mr. Ingham decided upon remanding the prisoner for a
week for inquiries to be made.

MESCHLBT Swim's 0111.PHAN Asys.ux.—Lord
Alfred Paget has oonsented to preside at the anniversary
festival of this institution, to be held on the occasion of
the visit of their Royal liniltnesees the Prince and Prisons
of Waled to the asylum on the 213th of June.