The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-22 00:00:00

DOVER RAILWAY COMPANY AND iNOTHRIL

This morning their lordships pronounced judgment in
the above case, which was an appeal by the Earl of Darn-
ley from a decision of the Lord Justices in the Court of
Chancery. The question was whether the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway Company should construct and
maintain certain openings under and certain footways over
their railways, for the purpose of connecting the lands
attached to the noble earl's seat of Cobham-hall, Kent,

which had been severed by the railway.
The Lord Chancellor said he was of opinion that the
ajuppeal dgmenought to be dismisselt of the court below was correct, and that the
Lords Cranworth and Westbury, who had also beard
the
and arguments in the case, expressed a similar opinion,

The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The remainder of the day was occupied with Scotch
pps, which presented no feature of general public
interest.

EQUITY COURTS.—MAscH 21.
(Before the Lords Justices.)

LONDON, HAMBURG, AND CONTINENTAL EXCHANGE BANK.

Judgment was delivered this morning in this appeal
from an order of the Master of the Rolls. The following
are the facts of the use :—The company was established
in February, 1063 ; Mr. Ward was the owner of 30 shares,
which, in June, 1863, he sold to Mr. Stafford, through Mr.
Henry, Stafford's broker, and he executed a transfer of
them to Stafford. The transfer was not registered. There
were various dealings between Stafford and Henry, and upon
• settlement of accounts in April, 1864, it was agreed that
the shares should be transferred to Henry for his absolute
benefit. Subsequently Stafford refused to carry this agree-
ment into effect, and thereupon Henry applied to Ward to
execute a transfer to him, which Ward accordingly did
upon receiving front Henry an indemnity against any
claims by Stafford. In the meantime Stafford had given
notice to the company that the shares belonged to him,
and required them not to register the shares in Henry's
name. In consequence of receiving this notice the
company declined to put Henry's name on the register,
and thereupon Henry bled his bill against Stafford to compel
a specific performance of the agreement of April, 1864. In
April, 186.\ an order was made for winding up the com-
pany, and Stafford then expressed his willingness to transfer
the shares, but Henry declined to accept the offer. Ward,
whose name continued on the register, was put on the Bat
of contributories, and he applied to the Master of the Rolls
to have the name of either Stafford or Henry substituted
for his own name. The Master of the Rolls held that in
equity Henry was the real owner of the shares, and he
ordered his name to be substituted for that of Ward.
Henry appealed.
.

Mr: Jesiel and Mr. Caldeoott appeared for Mr. Henry;
Mr. Swanston for Mr. Stafford ; Mr. E. R. Turner for Mr.
Ward ; Mr. Selwyn and Mt. Roxburgh for the official
liquidator.
Lord Justice Turner add the question depended mainly
upon the extent of the jurisdiction given to the court by
re. 31 of the Companies Act, 1562, and the circumstances
under which that jurisdiction ought to be exercised. In
his lordship's opinion this jurisdiction was a discretionary
one ; it was not imperative upon the court to exercise it ;
and under the circumstances of the present we his lord-
ship thought that it ought not to be etercised. He
thought, therefore, that Mr. Ward's summons ought to
have been dismissed, and that his name should remain
on the list of contributories of the company. As, however,
the extent of the jurisdiction had been argued, his lord-
ship thought it right to give his opinion upon it, though
he regretted to say that his learned brother differed from
him. His lordship was of opiuion that the jurisdiction
given by sec. 35 of the set was ► general one, and not
limited to the case where there had been error or default
on the part of a company with respect to the register of its
members.

Lord Justice Cairns was of the same opinion with
regard to this particular case, but, on the other hand, his
lordship thought that the scope and object of section 35
was to provide for the correction of errors in the register
occasioned by the default of the company, and
that the jurisdiction of the court under the sec-
tion was limited to that object. In the present
case his lordship thought th►t the board of di-
rectors of the company could not have acted
in any other way than they did. Consequently, in
his opinion, Mr. Ward's summons ought to have been
rbiannased, and this appeal must be allowed. The official
liquidator not objecting, the costs of all parties might
come out of the estate of the company.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)

THE COLONIAL AND GENERAL GAB COMPANY (LIMITED).-

RIDDELL'S CARE.
There were two moving • in this matter—the offi-
cial liquidator reeking a l, and the alleged contributory
asking that his name might be removed from the register
of sharoholdeni.

It appeared that in September, 186.', Riddell held
twenty-six shares in this company, which he sold to
another shareholder, who executed the transfer, and took
the same to the company's offices in October, 1865. In
that month the company passed a resolution to wind up, •
petition was subsequently presented, an official liquidator
MAR appointed, and a winding up under avervision of the
court was ordered in November, 1866. No notification as
to acceptance or rejection of the transfer was sent by the
company to Riddell, to whom, however, a circular was sent
in May, 1866, as to calls. Riddell denied in reply that he
was a shareholder. No reply to thin was made by the
company. The only entry on the matter was in the com-
pany's minute-book of November 1, 1866, which was as
follows :7" Transfer of Riddell to flodge! negatived:.

Mr. W. W. Cooper wan for Riddell, ;ad contended that
there had been a complete acquiescence on the part of the
company in the transfer. Mr. Bacon and Mr. Graham
Hastings were for the official liquidator.
His Honour held that there was acquiescence, and that
Riddell's name must be removed.

THE Curuor3 LIBEL CASE.—At the Greenwich
police-court yesterday, Mr. Joseph Hmood, of Wyton-
house, Laurie.perk, Sydenham appeared in discharge of
his recognisances to answer a charge of having written and
published a libel against Mr. Alfred Watson, an attorney,
he knowing the same to be fahie. Mr. F. H. Lewis at-
tended for the prosecution, and Mr. Sleigh forthe defence.
It will be recollected that the hbels complained
of consisted in writing upon the lining and
six windows of first-class carriages on the London and
Brighton Railway (on which line both parties daily tra-
velled), the complainant's names and address, underneath
which were the expressions " cerdsharper," " black-
guard," " card cheat, and " thief." Mr. Sleigh, in addi-
tion to the witnesses called on the last occasion, now
called three other witnesses, Mr. R. White, cashier at
the Hanover-square branch of the London and County
P.ank ; Mr. G. Chambers, of 21, Millman-street, Redford.
row, the defendant's father-in-law ; and the Rev. C. Gill-
man, of Wandsworth, who gave it as their opinion that
the libels were not in defendant's handwriting ; but in
cross-examination they said they bad had no experience in
writing upon glass, and admitted that the for-
mation of the letter "t " in the libels and
on an envelope sddressed by defendant to com-
plainant were peculiar and resembled each other.
Mr. Train said he would hear any number of witnesses
the learned counsel chose to call, but if they were merely
to state their opinions as to the hand-writing nothing
would be gained by it, as the circumstances oonnected with
the case were such that he could do no other than submit
it to a jury. Mr. Sleigh said, after such an intimation
from his worship, notwithstanding the defendant wished
other witnesses to be called, he should take upon himself
the responsibility of declining to call them. The prosecu-
tion, he observed, were very properly endeavouring to
ascertain who was the author of the scandalous and mali-
cious libels which had been written, and on the part of
defendant he gave his solemn denial that he is the guilty
person. The depositions were then completed, and the
defendant was committed for trial at the Central Criminal
Court, bail in two sureties of 100/. each, and himself in
2001., being taken for his appearance.
THE CONDEMNED CONVICT WACIER.—Ed ward
Wager 36, farmer, who is under sentence of death
in Derby gaol for the brutal murder of his wife, Harriet
Wager, at Bleaklow Farm, on Christman Eve last, is to be
executed on Tuesday morning next, at eight o'clock, in
front of the county gaol. Since his condemnation, the
murderer has frequently protested his innocence. Two
turnkeys are with him day and night ; his appetite is
good, he sleeps well, and his conversation is of the most
cheerful character. He seems to be buoyed up with the
hops that his life will be spared, and that the exertions
of Mr. Wheatcroft, his solicitor, to get a reprieve will
be successful. He has been visited two or three times by
his brother (a commercial traveller), but by no other rela-
tive. It will be recollected that Wager was divorced from
his first wife for cruelty to her, and since his trial he has
received a most affectionate letter from her. On Tuesday
last, Mr. Wheateroft, solicitor, Matlock, secompiuded by
Mr. Waddy, banister, junior counsel for Wager, waited
upon Mr. Secretary Walpole with a memorial for Wager's
life to be spared. The Home Secretary said a reply would
be given in • few days.
SEIZURE OF UOUNTERFRIF COlN.—Yestertlay
rooming the police visited the house No. 2, Edward-street,
Crabtree-shot-road, Peckham, and discovered four large
boxes containing no less than 1351b5. in weight of counter-
feit coin of every denomination. In addition to this, the
officers seized a powerful galvanic battery and aU the ap-
pliances for covering, casting, and perfecting. The house.
which was six roomed, was occupied by George Crossley
(whose brother was convicted of coining a short time since)
and his wife, Sarah Crossley, buth of whom were taken
into custody.
The threatened extinction of the political privi-
leges of the boroughs of Lancaster and Great Ysemouth
has put the authorities of both places on the alert, and
petitions from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the
two boroughs have been presented to parliament, praying
that the capital sentemas upon them may not be carried
out.