The Express.
London, England, 1866-08-02 00:00:00

CRICKET.

SURETY V. ENGIAND.—This great contest same to
close yesterday, lsind winning In one Innings and 296 rani
to apses Subjoined is the score —England, first innings, 521
Surrey, lint innings, 99 ; second Innings, 146--total, 425.
M.C.C. AND GROUND v. CRABTZRHOUML—This was
a one day's match, played at Lord's Ground yesterday.
At the close of the day's play the score stood u follows :
Carte:house, first Innings 34 , second innings, 107—total, 141 ;
M.C.C., first innings, 77 ; second Innings, 65—total, 142.

CRICKITINO AT OSBORNE. —Theafficers and MD of
theltorl Yacht playedeericket match on Friday againstthe
members of the royal household, in the Isle of Wight.
The Duke of Edinburgh played with the yachtsmen, the
young Prince Leopold kept score of the tame, and the
Queen, the Prince of Wan, and the Princes, with the
younger members of the family, visited the ground and
watched the batting and bowling.

Rics FOR Dooom'a COAT AND BADOE.—The
151 et annual 'cullers' race in old-fashioned boats for the
livery and badge presented by T. Doggett, the celebrated
comedian, to commemorate the accession of the House of
Hanover to the British throne, was decided yesterday
afternoon, shortly before high water, over the course be-
tween the Swan at London-bridge and the Swan at Clad-
sea. The second and third prizes are the gifts of the late
Sir Wm. Jolliffe, arising from the interest on 2691.17 e. 3d.,
invested in the Three per Cents. The second prise
is 5-Bths of the interest, 4/. 17s. 9d. ; the third prize is
3-Bths thereof, 21. 18a. 9d. The first man will receive one
guinea in addition to the livery, badge, and freedom ; the
fourth man, 1/. lls. 6d. ; and the fifth and the sixth,
1/. is. each, presented by the Fishmongers' Company.
The following competed Kew ; Flower, Poplar ;
J. Atkinson, Bermondsey ; Jones, Surrey Canal ; Weals,
Thames Ditton ; B. Beard, Alderman's-stairs. On getting
off, Iles, who rowed in Canin'i boat, jumped away with a
lead of nearly a clear length, Flowers second, Colpes
third, Beard fourth, this order being maintained under the
Cannon-street-bridge, where Bee had increased his lead to
three lengths. At Blackfriars-bridge he was six clear
lengths in front, and increasing it all the way to the finish
won easily by about a quarter of a mile,

tato inteitigtita.

EQUITY COURTS.—AuausT I.

AUTON Y. GRANT.-TME CREDIT PONCTEI COMPANY.

This was an interlocutory application for an injunction
to restrain Mr. Albert Grant and the Credit Fonder Com-
pany from purchasing with the money belonging to the
company 3,900 shares in the City of Milan Improvements
Company, now held by Mr. Grant, Mr. G. E. Seymour, or
their nominees ; to restrain Mr. Grant and the company
from delivering up to Mr. Seymour, or to any person on his
behalf, a promissory note and bonds given by him to Mr.
Grant or the Credit Fonder Company, or any other wend-
ties now held by the Credit Fonder Company, till a slim of
money advanced by the company had been repaid ; and to
restrain Mr. Grant and the company from handing over
the assets of the company to any other company, until all
debts and liabilities had been discharged.
The case was argued at some length' and the plaintiff,
Dr. King, and Mr. Alf. Lowe, the secretary of the company,
were examined viva voce.

Mr. Gleam and Mr. Cracknall appeared for the plaintiff
the Attorney-General, Mr. Fooks, and Mr. Waller for the
company ; and Mr. Bailey and Mr. Speed for Mr. Grant.
The Vice-Chancellor in giving judgment said it was
alleged on the part of the plaintiff that Mr. Grant, the
manager of the Credit Foncier Company, and Mr. Seymour
entered into an agreement together to buy shares in the
City of Milan Improvements Company—a company brought
out by the Credit Foncier—and deal with them for their
own profit ; that they agreed together to purchase 12,000
shares in order by creating a demand to raise the
price in the market. But it appeared that the
shares thus purchased became depreciated in value, and
it was alleged that these two gentlemen therefore formed
the scheme of thrusting those they bad purchased upon i
the Credit Fonder Company. It was further alleged that
in order to enable Mr. Grant and Mr. Seymour to buy
these shares, Mr. Grant borrowed 80,0001. from the com-
pany, and by way of security for the loan deposited a pro-
missory note and bond, which had been given to him by
Mr. Seymour in respect of his share in their joint venture.
The bill further alleged that there was an intention to
make the company purchase some 3,900 additional shares
in the Milan Company, these shares, as it was mid, not
only being worthless but having a heavy liability attached
to them in respect of calls, and that in order to conceal
these transactions, Mr. Grant had conceived the scheme of
reconstructing the company. There was also alleged to be
an intention to hand over the assets of the existing com-
pany to the new company without making proper pro-
vision for the payment of the debts of the existing
company, by which the shareholders would suffer, because
they would be left liable for the debts when all the
assets had been handed over. The question was whether
the plaintiff was entitled to be relieved upon either of the
three points raised by the application. With respect to
the 3,900 shares which be alleged it was intended to pur-
chase with money of the company, the evidence went to
show that there was no such intention, and the court
could not make an injunction to restrain an act which had
not been proved to be in contemplation. Upon the second
point the plaintiff alleged that as security for the loan of
80,0001. Mr. Grant deposited with the Credit Foncier, in
addition to Mr. Seymour's promissory note and bond, cer-
tain shares in the Milan Company, and it was prayed that
the company might be restrained from delivering up to
Mr. Seymour any securities. It was clear from the evidence
that the promissory note and bond had already been handed
over to Mr. Seymour upon payment by him of a sum of
money, and that all transaction, between Mr. Seymour
and the company had been satisfied and discharged, and
as there was no ground for supposing that there was the
slightest intention to deliverup to that gentleman any shares
in the Milan Company, or an securities whatever in the
possession of the company, this part of the injunction
could not be sustained. He was surprised, considering
the way in which these shares were spoken of by the
plaintiff, that it should be sought to restrain the company
from delivering them op. As to the third point it appeared
that the present shares of the company were 201. shares, of
which 5/. had been paid, and that the natural sensitiveness
of the shareholders in these times with regard to such a lia-
bility led to the proposal. to reconstitute the company with
shares of a reduced nominal value. There was nothing to
prevent the company dissolving itself, and a new company
being formed, but it had no right to hand over its assets to
a new company without paying or making ample provision
for all liabilities. He could not say that the affidavits on
either side were satisfactory, but there was no sufficient
ground for concluding that there was any design to hand
over the assets without making proper. provision for the
debts either by paying them or so providing for them that
the shareholders in the old company should no longer be
under any risk with regard to them ; and it was hardly
conceivable that the 6,000 shareholders constituting the
company would have sanctioned the reconstitution if their
safety in this respect had not been secured. But apart
from the merits, there was quite sufficient ground
for the refusal of the application. The plaintiff,
as it appeared from his own evidence, was a gentleman
without compation except as a buyer and seller of shares,
and had dealt in and lost by Credit Foncier shares,
but bad never been a registered shareholder until, for the
purpose of filing this bill, and after the bill had been pre-
pared, he purchased five shares. Mr. Seaton's explanation
' of his object in filing the bill was that he hoped to get
back money which he had lost by his 'peculation, ; but the
bill could not by any. act of the court restore anything to
him. Under these circumstances the mutation had been
not unnaturally made that no benefit to the plaintiff could
result from this proceeding, unless it induced some person
; to buy him off ; and no other object was conceivable
except that Mr. Seaton might suppose that the neon-
, 'traded company would beim favourable to his gambling
speculations in the shares. The court certainly would not,
at least upon an interlocutory application, amid a person
whoy having no grievanoe, rink, liability, or anything to
justify him in salting for relief, put himself into • potion
of risk and liability for the purpose of filing his bill.
; The application was refused, with costa.

THE HIMALAYAII MLA COMPANY (LIMITED).
The sesretary of this oorapiny writes with refereace to our
report of the Court of Bankruptcy, " In re D. X. Hair."
The secretary distinctly denies that the oonipany have say
shares belonging to Mr. D. B. Heir in their pmeseara,
and repeats the statement he made in court, that the com-
pany hold no shares. The sum for which the Himalayan
Tea Company are returned as eceditors is 10,0761.