The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-26 00:00:00

NAM fatelltsente.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 25.
(Wore the Lord Chancellor.)
atm r. 11713/XAtIONAL WtZ (LIMITID).

"[The Lord Chancellor gave judgment to-day in this
appeal by the defendants from the decision of Vice-
Chancellor Wood. The suit was Instituted to have it
declared that the plaintiff was entitled to have the certi-
ficate and be registered as the holder of 54 shares in the
International Bank, in lieu of a similar number of shares
in the London and Colonial Bank. It appeared that the
cue of Mr. files rested on an amalgamation between the
International (formerly the British and American Ex-
change Bank) and the Colonial Bank, part of the
arrangement of which was that the holders of
shares in the latter should, on payment of certain
calls, be entitled to surrender their skates and obtain in
lien of them shares in the International Bank. As a re-
sult of the arrangements for amalgamation, the share-
holders of the Colonial Bank had been informed that they
would be entitled to exchange their shares for shares in
the other, and the right being considered certain, a prac-
tice grew uof buying for purchasers shares in one or the
p other bank indifferently. Mr. flee had ordered his broker
to buy shares in the International Bank, but it seemed
they were bought in the Colonial. The plaintiff not being
satisfied, his agent had an interview with Mr. Gray, the
manager of the International Bank, and inquired whether,
if the plaintiff paid the calls on the 50 Colonial
shares which he then had, he would be fur-
nished with certificates of shares in the former bank,
adding that he would not pay the calla unless he was
assured of this. It was alleged that Mr. Gray replied by
the authority of the directors that if the call. were paid,
the shares would be exchanged. After a careful exami-
nation of all the circumstances, his lordship affirmed the
decree of the Fice-Chancellor. For all substantial pur-
poses the two banks were identical; the separate existence
of the London and Colonial Bank being merely preserved
in order that if necessary claims against its shareholders
might be enforced. The assurance given by Mr. Gray
was a direct statement by the authority of the directors,
and the plaintiff having paid the calls in pursuance of
that statement, they could not now alter the position
which be had assumed by virtue of their assurance, and
repudiate his right to hive the shares exchanged. The
appeal must be Mamboed with costs.
Sir R. Palmer, Mr. Giffard, Mr. Eddie Mr. Bagahawe,
and Mr. Robinson appeared for the partirk

(Before

Sir R. Malin.)
PARRIS r. PRICK-A CARNIVAL BALL.

Mr. Renshaw moved on behalf of a director of the
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company for •
special injunction to restrain the holding to-morrow night,
in the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, of • carnival ball,
or " bal masque." The insurance company are the
landlords and the defendant, Mr. Morton Price, is the
lessee of the Queen's Theatre, in which the ball la ad-
vertised to take place, and the application was made in
apprehension of danger to the license which was merely
for the performance of stage plays. The covenant between
the parties specified that the theatre was to be used only
for dramatic, equestrian, or other like performances as were
not contrary to decency and good morals. The defendant,
in answer to a letter from the plaintiffs on the subject
of the proposed ball, had stated that he had
lent, not let, the building for the purpose, but
bad given notice that the ball could not be
held, as he understood it was contrary to his agree-
ment with the landlords. An advertisement, how-
ever, appeared subsequently in two local papers, signed
by the defendant's acting manager, assuring the public
that there was no intention to stop the ball, and in con-
sequence of that announcement the present application

was made.
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the plaintiff had
a strong prima facie case, but that as the advertisement
appeared on the 19th inst, his application might have been
made in sufficient time to allow the other side to came to
the court to dissolve the injunction. During the long
vacation a motion came before him to prevent the volunteer
ball at lalington and on the same ground, but it was made
sufficiently early to enable him to put both sides upon an
undertaking which enabled the ball to be held. Aa the
magistrates had not interfered In this cue, he must assume
that there was supposed to be nothing immoral or objec-
tionable in the entertainment advertised, and if it were
found afterwards that Mr. Prioe•s conduct endangered the
license he hed no doubt that the plaidlifFs' application for
an injunction would sufficiently protect their interest.
The motion must be refused because it was made too late.