The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-13 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. -MAY 11.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
IN RE THE BAHIA AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY
COMPANIES.

This case raised a very important point with reference
to the registration of a torrid transfer of shares in the
Bahia end San Francisco Railways. It appeared that Miss
Tritton, a Prussian lady, a governess in the Earl of
Antrim's family, went abroad in March, 1866, and bdore
going abroad she entrusted her securities, representing her
whole fortune, to Mr. Oldham, of 4, Austiufriers, giving
him authority to receive the dividends and pay them over
to her. No sooner had she gone to the continent than
Oldham sold all her securities, including the shares in gees-
tion, and applied the proceeds to his own benefit; and in
order to transfer them Oldham forged Miss Tritton's name.
When the transfers were presented to the company, they,
according to their practice, sent a letter addressed to Miss
Tritton, 9, Princess-gate, but thry received no reply, and
as she gave Oldham's address before leaving, no doubt that
letter fell into his hands. The circumstances of the trans-
fer, did not come to her knowledge for some months after,
when she was at Dresden, when she was informed that
Oldham had gone to America. On her return to this
country she made her claim, but the company declined to
re-register her. Upon that she issued a writ, but in con-
sequence of the granting of this rule the action had not
come on for trial. Miss Tritton, on her affidavit, swore
positively that the registered transfers were forgeries,
and that she never authorised Oldham to deal with
the transfers other than to receive the dividends and hand
them over to her. Rules had been obtained calling upon
Miss Tritton to show cause why the registers in these two
railways as regarded certain shares should not be settled
by the court, under the 35th clause of the Companies
Act, 1862.
Hon. D. Campbell appeared on behalf of Miss Tritton,
Mr. Watkin Williams and Mr. Cohen on behalf of the
companies, Mr. J. Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Harrison on be-
half of the sub-purchasers.
Mr. J. Browne said that Oldham, who forged Miss Trit-
ton's signature", sold the share. to a person named
Stockiaghatu Colder, and the company, on the production
of the transfers, transferred them to him as transferee of
the shares, and he, through a broker on the Stock Ex-
change, soldthem to the other parties to the ride, who
were bone fide holden.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said Miss Tritton wished to get
her shares back. It was immaterial to her who suffered.

Mr. D. Campbell submitted that their lordship should
order Miss Tritton's name to be re-entered on the register,
and pay over to her the dividends with interest from the
time of the forgery,together with the necessary costs. If
nit, that the rule should be discharged with costs, and
Mies Tritton be allowed to go on with the action she com-
menced last autumn.

The Lord Chief Justice—What authority did she give
to her agent to deal with the shares'
Mr. D. Campbell—Merely to receive the dividends and
pay them over to her.
Mr. J. Browne said that he appeared on behalf of the
Rev. H. Burton and Mr. Woodburn, the sub-purchasers of
the Bahia shares, and the contention was th►t as they did
not pinhole on the forged transfers they ought not to be
called on to refund the money. He contended that the
company had no right to put the sub-purchasers forward to
litigate this question, sad by a kind of interpleader rule.
The company ought to pay.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said all the court hail to do was to
order Miss Tritton's name to be restored to the register,
and they must recover from the company the money they
bad paid for the shares. It was a matter of discretion how
that question should be raised, either by an Lune or by a
case, so as to bring in the intermediate parties.
The Lord Chief Justice said the rule would be made ab-
solute to order the company to restore Miss Tiitton's name
in respect of these shares, of which she was the holder,
and that a case be stated as between Mr. Browne s clients
and the company to raise the important question of the
company's liability to refund to them. The company to
ray the cost■ of this rule and ouch costs as hail been
incurred by Miss Tritton in her actions, which, by the
judgment of the court, would now be stopped.