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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRClllT.—Kutorros, APRIL 2.
(Before Chief Justice Bovill and a Special Jury.)

ABBOTT V. THE SOUTH EASTERN OF PORTUGAL RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action to recover 10,0001. upon certain hills
of exchange or promissory notes given by the defendants.
Sir G. llonyman, Q.C., and Mr. J. P. Murphy were
counsel for the plaintiff ; the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., and
Mr. Philbrick appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiff in the action was a stockbroker, who
carries on his business in Tokenhouse-yard, and be sought
to recover from the defendants the sum above-mentioned,
which he bad advanced to the company on behalf of cer-
tain of his clients. The circumstances connected with the
transaction appeared to be of a rather complicated
character. From the opening statement of Sir G. Hony-
man it would seem that the company, at the commence-
ment of last year, were desirous of raising about 300,000/.
to pay a Mr. M'Kenxie, one of the contractors for the
works, and that the General Credit Finance Com-
pany was applied to to assist in raising the
funds, and that company again entered into
negotiation with the Loudon Financial Association
to assist in carrying out the proposed loan. The pro-
position of the directors of the railway company appeared
to be that they should give bills, pable at six months,
for the money that was advanced, and that a certain
amount of the scrip of the company should be deposited as
collateral security ; and it appeared that in the month of
March lest year, Mr. Wildey, the manager of the London
Financial Association, had an interview with the plaintiff
in reference to a loan of 10,0001. After some negotiaticn
the plaintiff consented to advance that amount on behalf
of some of his clients, and he received promissory notes of
the company for the amount, scrip of the company being
at the same time plated in his hands as collateral security.
The interest that was to be paid was at the rata of eight
per cent., and three per cent. was to be charged in addi-
tion as commission, and • sum of about 0001. was deducted
from the amount of the loan for interest and commission
at the time the transaction was completed ; but
when the bills became due they were dishonoured.
It was clearly established that the money bad been ad-
vanced by the plaintiff, but when the day of payment
arrived, all the parties who were presumed to be liable
exhibited the strongest indication of a desire to shirk their
responsibility, and the plaintiff, as the result, was com-
pelled to bring this action to recover the amount of the
bills that had been given by the company.
There did not appear to be any defence to the action
upon the merits, but an objection was taken upon the
authority of the case of the Mid Wales Railway Company,
that • ' company "of that description had no power to give
a promissory note or bill of exchange.
Sir G. Honyman, however, contended that the consti-
tution of this company was a a different character to that
of the company cited, and that, consequently, the objection
did not apply.
The Chief Justice declined to act upon the objection,
and, in the result, the jury returned a verdict for the full
amount claimed, with interest.