The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-17 00:00:00

LAW INTZLLIGENCZ.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir It Mani.)
PERUVIAN RAILWAYS COMPANY (LIMITED) P. THAMES AND
MERSEY MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY-RE PERUVIAN

RAILWAYS COMPANY.
This was • motion to restrain the Thames and Mersey
Marine Insurance Compare by injunction from levying
execution upon the goods of the Peruvian Railways
Company, by virtue of a judgment for 15,0001. upon
certain bills of exchange, or taking any further
proceedings for the recovery of the money. The
WIN in question were accepted by the directors of the
Peruvian Company and transferred to the Thames and
Mersey Company. The plaintiffs' company was established
with the object of forming a Societe Anonyme in Peru for
the construction of certain railways there, in accordance
with the provisions of • concession granted by the re-
public in May and December, 1864,and- the nominal capital
was 3,34000 W., in shares of 214/. each. The concession was
obtained by the International Contract Company, and for
that concession and for making the railways the plaintiffs
were to pay 3,340,00 W. The articles of association were
signed by Mr. Philip Shaw Fletcher, who was • share-
holder and director of all the three companies concerned
in these transactions. In February, 1866, when an instal-
ment of the debt to the Contract Company was about to
become due, a meeting of the plantiffe company was held,
at which it was resolved to amept bills of- exchange for
58,3311. at six months, and ofthat amount the 15,0001.
in question formed part. In August last year the Thames
and Mersey Company brought an action upon these ac-
was filet
ceptances, and obtained judgment, and thereupon this bill

Mr. Bally, Mr. Roxburgh, and Mr. C. L. Webb, for the
plaintiffs, submitted that the claim was invalid, on the
ground that it was incompetent to a corporation not
formed to trade in the ordinary way by buying or selling,
to accept bills of exchange, or band Woolf by contracts
apart from the specific purposes for which it was estab-
lished.

Mr. Glare and Mr. Kekewich, who represented the
Thames and Mersey Company, contended that every com-
pany formed under the act of 1862 was a trading corpora-
tion, and as such was entitled to aooept bills of exchange.
Mr. E. Smith and Mr. Higgins appeared for the Inter-
national Contract Company.
The Vice-Chancellor held tth►t the company had power
both under the Winding-up Acts and under the general
law to issue bills of exchange, and that it would be most
inconvenient if they had not. He, therefore, dismissed
the bill with costs.

Mr. Glare then supported a petition of the Thames and
Mersey_ Company for the winding-up of the Peruvian Rail-
ways ,-;ompsny.
Mr. Hydras appeared on the part of the International
Contract Company, who were stated to be the holders of
4,600 shares._

' The Vice-Chancellor made the order as prayed, and re-
fused the Contract Company their costa.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Blackburn, Shee, and Lush.)

HYAJIB V. IVKBPITift.

Mr. Laxton moved fora to show cause why bail
should not be dispensed with in an appeal in this case. It
was an action for personal injuries received by the plain-
tiffs wife, and also to a horse and cart, in St. Mark's-
road, owing to the alleged negligence of the defendant,
who was a contractor, in not prorly reinstating the road.
The soil had subsided, leaving a large bole in the road. The
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 1.101., the Lord
Chief Justice who tried the case reserved leave to the de-
fendant to move the court to enter the verdict for him if
the court should be of opinion there was no evidence of
negligence to make him liable. The point was subse-
quently argued, when the court took time to consider its
judgment. On the 26th February they gave judgment in
favour of the defendant. The plaintiff, who was a working
man, bad become greatly impoverished by the ►ccident,
and prosecuting the action, sod unless this application was
granted no doubt he would be taken in execution for
the costs. He had become impoverished by the acts of
the defendant, and as it was a matter in the discretion of
the court, he (Mr. Laxton) hoped the court would grant
the application.
Mr. Justice Lush said that as the case now stood, the
defendant was not liable. Why did the court subject him
to further costa without requiring the plaintiff to comply
with the necessary rules of the court?
Mr. Justice Blackburn said the plaintiff was not de-
prive(' of his right to prosecute the appeal.
Without calling upon Mr. IL Chambers, Q.C., who ap-
peared to show cause in the first instance,
The court refused the application.
Rule refused.