The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE OVEREND AND GURNEY APPEALS.
JIJDOMILNT.
(Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranwortli, sea
Lord Colousy.)
cIAzZ3 r. TURQUAND AND ANOTREL—rric TRZ TOUNGEI
v. TURQUAND AND ANOTHER.
The facts in these appeals from two orders of Vice-Chas.
caller Melina have recently appeared in our columns.
Their lordships pee judgment to-day.
These appeals were representative cases put forward to
decide the question of liability on the part of certain**.
tributories to the company of Overcool, Gurney, and (•
(Limited). Both cases had been argued together. Thu;
name of the appellant Oakes, was alleged to appear in
the list of contributories for 25 shares, and that of the
appellant, William Peek, for 2,000 shares, and by the
orders in question the Vice-Chancellor refused the motion.
to have the names removed from the register of the corn.
puny, and directed the applicants to pay the casts of the
respondents, the liquidators. The appellants contended
that they were induced by the statements in the prospects
issued by the company to believe that the Minima of the old
firm of Overend, Gurney, and Co. was a solvent and pm.
fitable business • that it was, on the contrary, an insol-
vent one, and had for several years previously to the date
of the prospectus been carried on at a large annual log;
that statements in a prospectus, when they led to a es.
tract by which a person became a shareholder in a company,
were unfair and dishonest, if, by stating only a pars
of the truth, and concealing the rest, they pre.
duced a (au impression on the mind of the pen,*
to whom they were made. They alleged that the mite
,000 f.) of the good will of the business was stated to
be such as, in the opinion of the directors could opt fail to
insure a highly remunerative return to the gharsibolders,
although the directm • knew that the business had di.
vided no profits in the year 12(57 ; that nose
had been earned since 1860, and that for the Wt lice
years of its existence, it had suffered a large annual low,
all which facts were °encoded from the shareholders. The
Vice-Chancellor thought that in publishing the prospectus
complained of, the directors had been guilty of fraud,
that the prospectus was to be considered the
prospectus of the company, and if the question
had been merely between the company and the
appellants, he should have had so bulletin
in coming to the conclusion that the latter were entitled to
the relief they sought ; but that whatever might be their
rightssgainst the .company, the petitioners could have oc,
right to have their names erased from the Bat of ambit*.
tones until the whole of the debts of the company lure
paid.
The Lord Chancellor, in considering the case, said he
should look at it throughout as if Oakes were the cely
appellant, because if he failed, the other appellant, Pea
the younger, could not possibly succeed. After goks
minutely through the facts, his lordship was clearly
opinion that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor ought to
I be affirmed, and both appeals dismissed, with costs.
Lord Crsnworth and Lord Colonsay concurred.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr.Coelmisaioner. Croulburn.)

IN SE A. J. rioumgl D.
The bankrupt was a wholesale jeweller, and Birmingham
and Sheffield factor, carrying on business in Hounds,liteh.
His accounts return debts to the amount of 3,XIM. of
which 3,183/. are unsecured, against assets at 9814.
Mr. Reed opposed for the assignees, and asked for fur.
they accounts, also for additional particulars relative to
the bankrupt's pawning transactions. The bankrupt ap.
peered to have commenced pledging jewellery in April
last, and he had obtained advances at different times n,xe
the deposit of goods of considerable value. Shortly
before the adjudication the bankrupt went abroad, taking
jewellery worth about 1,0001. • and, although he alleged
that he had restored the property intact, the assignee. did
not believe that statement. The bankrupt had ben
examined, and he stated that a person named Joseph
Myers, a chiropodist, living at Nutting-hill, had pledged
the goods on his behalf.
His Honour intimated that the case seemed to be one
for a prosecution.
Mr. G. Lewis supported, and said he was sorry to heir
the court prejudge the bankrupt, who had not yet been
heard. The bankrupt was able to answer the charges made
against him at the proper time, and with regard to the
jewellery alleged to have been taken away and not ac•
counted :or it had been actually sold and formed part of
the estate. . _ _ . . .

His Honour said that the opinion he expressed was
founded upon the bankrupt's own evidence.
Mr. Lewis said he must dissent from the conclusion at
which his honour had arrived, and asked the court not to
make the order with regard to the pledging transactions
as the bankrupt had already given all the information is
his power relative thereto.
His Honour said that nothing could be more reasonable
than the application which had been made, and the sc.
counts asked for must be furnished.
Adjourned accordingly.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.