The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-27 00:00:00

THE E )1/4 PRESS. SATURDAY EVEN NG MARCH 27, 1858.

tab) Intellignu.

EQUITY COURTB.—Mecca 28.
(Before Vice-Chancellor air W. P. Wood.)

RINDALL r. Till CRYSTAL PALACE CONPANT.-OPENTNO
07 THE C sssss L PALACE ON SUNDAYS.

This bill was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and
the other ahareholders of the company for the purpose of
obtaining sa injunction to restrain the defendants from ac-
cepting the surrender of any share or shares in the own-
pany in exchange for tickets of admission on the terms spe-
cified in an advertisement issued by the company on the 17th
Feb., 1858, and from admitting any persons or person to the
Crystal Palsoe, or the grounds therm:tato belonging, on the
Lord's day, in consideration of any money payment, whether
made directly or indirectly. The case came on on demurrer.
Mr. W. Jemes appeared in support of the demurrer. The
bill stated that the company was incorporated by charter,
which, amongst other thing*, provided " that no spirituous
or other fermented or intoxicating liquors should be fur-
nished to the persons visiting the said building or grounds of
the sad company, and that no person should be admitted to
the said building or grounds on the Lord's day in coneidera-
Son of say money payment, whether made directly or indi-
rectly, nukes the express unction of the legislature should
have been obtained for admission on such consideration,
and ties oily from the time warranted by the act of parlia-
ment " At an extraordinary general meeting of the
altusholdera held on the 17th Dec., 1857, a report of the
directors was read, which recommended, in order to reduce the
share capital of the company, that a ticket should be issued
to the proprietor of each share, entitling to 60 admissions,
and further, recommending that these tickets should admit
the holder or his nominee to the palace and grounds on
Sunday afternoons, as a gratuitous privilege and without any
money payment to be made directly or indirectly to the
company. The meeting adopted this report, and passed a
resolution authorising the directors to imam+ tickets in accord-
ance with the terms they had recommended. Thereupon
We bill was filed to prevent that resolution being acted
upon. The question, said the learned counsel, resolved itself
into, what was the effect of the resolution of the meeting of
the 17th Deo., whether the granting of the tickets to the
shareholders is surrender of their shares, admitting them to
the palace sad grounds on Sundays, amounted to a money
payment directly or indirectly, and he contended that it did
not. The object of inserting those words in the charter
relative to the admission on Sundays was for the purpose of
peeventiag the building being turned into a piece of enter-
tainment, such as was prohibited by the 21 Geo. 111. chap.
49, and to which persons were admitted by mone but they
maid not say that admittance by these tickets wax bye money
payment, either directly or indirectly.
Mr. Hemming followed on the same side. He submitted
that the clause restricting the admission on Sundays was a
penal clause, and must be construed strictly, and that the
surrender of the shares could not strictly be held to be a
money payment either directly or indirectly.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Prendergast, and Mr. Bush
appeared in support of the bill; but, without calling on
them,
The Vice-Chancellor said he had come to the conclusion
that this demurrer could not be sustained. He thought that
to admit the holders of these tickets on the Sunday came
within the provisions of the charter. For the surrender of
the shares the shareholders got tickets of admission, and
these tickets of admission were money's worth to the company.
It seemed to him that the charter would be placed in peril if
he were to held that the company could take this step, and
therefore he should overrule the demurrer.
The Solicitor-General—You will grant the plaintiff his
costs of the demurrer P
The Vice-Chancellor—Yee.
The Solicitor-General—l suppose my learned friends will
allow me to take the injunction.
Mr. James said after the opinion which the court had ex-
premed he could not offer any opposition to the injunction.
An order for the injunction was then granted.