The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-19 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 19, 1867.

LAW INTELLIGENCIC.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
11!AWKINS r. MALTLIT.

The question in this case was one of considerable import-
ance as involving the legality of the practice which is pre-
valent on the Stuck Exchange with regard to dealings in
shares.

The plaintiff, Hawkins, on the 21st of March, 1866,
directed his brokers, Mews. Crawley, to sell 40 shares (5/.
paid up) in the Imperial Mercantile Credit Company. He
received a bought and sold note for 2021. 10s. (including
commission) the same day from Megan. Crawley, who sold
in the market to Mackenzie. On the 26th of March a call
was made by the directors, and the price of the shares im-
mediately fell. On the '_7th of March, which was " name
day," Mackenzie directed the Crawley, to take from •
stockbroker named Butler, the name of the transferee, and
he gave that of the defendant Maltby as pur-
chaser, through Megan. Wilkit.s, his brokers.
Crawley accordingly prepared deeds of transfer.
as from Hawkins to Maltby, and the plaintiff Hawkins
executed them, the consideration being in blank. The
Crawleys having received 1451. (and 15s. for stamp) from
Messrs. Wilkins, inserted 1451. as the consideration money,
and sent the transfers, with the share certificates, to Mews.
Wilkins. Having also received 571. 10s. the difference
between 2021. 10s. and 145/. from Mackenzie, the Crawleys
paid the plaintiff 202/. 10a. On the 11th of May the
company stopped payment and was afterwards wound up.
The bill was then filed to compel the defendant to exe-
cute the deeds of transfer (which he had hitherto not done),
and to have the transfer registered, and the defendant's
name put on the list of contributories, instead of the
name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had since been
obliged to pay a liquidator's call of 5/., and
also the former directors' call of U. on the
shares. The defendant's case was that he had directed
his brokers, Messrs. Wilkin, to buy for him 100 shares of
the company, which they bought in the market on the
26th of March, and for which he paid them 3651.
17s. Ifs had since received the share certifi-
cates, together with what purported to be deeds
of transfer of 40 Imperial Mercantile shares from the
plaintiff, which he admitted he had not executed.
Mr. C. M. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Townsend, for the
plaintiff, contended that his contract with the defendant
was perfectly good and binding according to the custom of
the Stock Exchange, and ought to be enforced. If the
price had risen, instead of having fallen, the plaintiff
could not have kept the shares.
Mr. Bruce, Q.C., and Mr. Bush, for the defendant? said
that there was no privity between him and the plaintiff.
The defendant's broken had bought in the market, and
knew nothing of the plaintiff until they received the deeds
of transfer.

The Vice-Chancellor held that the defendant was not
bound to register himself as a shareholder, or to have his
name placed on the list of contributories. His honour put
the following case :—Buppose a leasehold property
which is bought by A, and A afterwards tells B
the vendor, that since be bought he has resold
to C ; if C, before he has the legal estate
in him repudiates the purchase on the ground of the pro-
perty not being in the state in which he thought it was
when he agreed to purchase, B cannot enforce the con-
tract as against C. In this instance no doubt the pur-
chaser would have to pay for the shares, as having
Si. paid up, but it was another thing to say he
was bound to complete the purchase, when he finds that
there was a call of 51. actually due at time, which threw
down the value of the shares. He could not be compelled
to take shares which he had bought without any know-
ledge of this existing call The legal title wee not in the
defendant, and the equitable title could not be enforced
against him. His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill
with costa.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
PHILLIPS AND ANOTHER O. HOLMZE AND STONEHAM.
This part heard case was resumed to-day. Evidence on
behalf of the disputed codicil was given, showing that
although the testator (Mr. George Phillips, late of Streat-
ham-park) was suffering from great bodily weakness at the
time of the execution, he was perfectly able to understand
the nature of the act he was performing.
The case is likely to last a considerable time longer.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.
nil MARKED MONEY Tan.

Martha Yardley, a very respectable-looking young
woman, was brought up on remand before Sir Thomas
Henry, charged with stealing two half-crowns, the pro-
perty of Mr. Hine, her muter.
Mr. Campbell Sleigh, the barrister, attended for the
prosecution, and Kr. G. Lewis, of Ely-place, for the
defence.
It will be remembered that the prosecutor (who keeps
sign of the Camden, Store-abut), perceivusg that his •
were less since the prisoner had been in his service, mar ,
with the assistance of a detective, some silver money, and
placed it upon his shelf. At the end of the day the officer
searched the prisoner's boxes, and diaoovered two of the
marked half-crowns, some gold rings, a gold watch, end re-
ceipts of two deposits of 25f. each made by the prisoner
into the London and Westminster Bank. The prisoner
refusing to give any explanation for the possession of so
large a sum was taken into custody.
Mr. John Hine, cross-examined by Mr. Lewie—l marked
2/. 10s. in silver 'tito!gether. I placed IL on the shelf.
Found that sum, which is always kept for change, correct
in the evening. Most of the marked money bad then been
paid away. Gave 10a, also marked, to Carter (the detec-
tive) to make purchases at the bar. The first time I found the
marked 10a. complete in the private tilL I paid the same 10s.
away a second time, and on counting the money I found a
deficiency in the marked money. I cannot swear that
amongst the chugs I gave Carter there were any half-
crowns. I had a pot-boy who absconded the same morning
I charged the prisoner. I did not accuse him of the theft.
It was only a domestic dispute, that caused him to abscond.
I have not seen him since. I took a note on a piece of paper
how I marked the money.
The paper being produced, Mr. Lewis read aloud the
manner in which Mr. Hine marked the silver, which
chiefly consisted of scratches behind the head, under the
neck, on the edge, &a
Examination continued—The prisoner could have ob-
tained change out of the general till as well as from the
money on the shelf, but she could not from the private
til

By Mr. Sleigh—The prisoner could place two half-crowns
of her own money in the general till, and take two out if
she wished. My potboy merely absconded because I told
him he did not work enough, and I should start him. He
said he would not give me the trouble. I have never had
to place marked money on the shelf before.
Mr. Lewis produced several pieces of silver from his own
pockets, and gave to witness to examine.
Witness continued—The money produced is marked, but
not like mine ; the marks are imilar, but I should know
my own.
Mr. Lewis—Here is sixpenos I received from a cabman
this morning. Is that marked also ?
Witness—Yes; but not the same way ! marked mine.
Mr. Lewis—Here is a half -crown. Look at that.
Witness—From information received they have been
trying to imitate mine, but have not succeeded.
Robert Carter, E 117, was called, and said he not made
any further bigotries about the prisoner's former
situations.

Mr. Lewis, for the defence, raid that the girl was per-
haps very foolish in not accounting to her master for the
money, but he (Mr. Lewis) would show that the prisoner
had large sums of money before she entered the prose-
cutor's service. In 1866 she had made two deposits of 251.
and one of 404 in the Loudon end County Bank, but being
somewhat terrified by the panic of the tune, drew all the
money out again, but re-deposited 504 at the beginning of
this year in the London and Westminster Bank.
Kr. Lewis then called her former master, who proved to
having bad some of the prisoner's money pus through his
hands, and also gave the prisoner a very excellent cha-
racter.

A gentleman from the London and County Bank and
another from the London and Westminster proved the
circumstances stated by Mr. Lewis in reference to the
deposits and withdrawals made by the prisoner.
it having been intimated by Mr. Sleigh that his client
had no wish to press this charge if the magistrate con-
sidered the evidence incomplete,
Sir Thomas Henry said—Certainly the evidence given
hem to-day has removed • great many of the suspicious
circumstances which attached to the case when it was last
heard. Ido not like to commit the prisoner for trial when
I think that • jury would be almost certain to acquit.
But the prisoner is herself to blame for having withheld
explanations with respect to her possession of • large
sum of money, which would have given the case •
very different complexion, Mr. Hine, in the absence
of such explanations, was justified in regarding that
fact as a confirmation of his suspicions, coupled with
the fact of the two marked coins being found in her pos-
session. No doubt Mr. Lewis, who had defended the
prisoner in • very able manner, was quite right in saying
that the possession of marked money was not always to
be regarded as proof of guilt. Poliocoonstahla were very
fond of this test, but the fact that the officer had
marked as much as 2/. worth of silver, all which with
the exception of two half-crowns, had been allowed to go
out into the world, showed bow easily • person might have
marked money in his possession without knowing it. It
was a suspicious circumstance against her, certainly, but
in face of the other evidence and the testimony to charac-
ter which had been given in her favour, he did not think
it would be desirable to send the case to • jury. At the
same time he must say most decidedly that it was not
• case where any injury had been done to the prisoner
and no proceedingsought to follow, she having
herself in her present position by her own obstinacy in
declining to offer explanations, which she might have
done, to Mr. Hine, or to the mart at the brat examination.
The prisoner was then discharged.
There was some indication in the court of • disposition
to awiand, bat any such demonstration was at once
cheoW by the alms.

nisniwints CONDUCT NEAR ITIZ AGRICULTURAL HALL.

....
Henry Thomas, aged 32, of 7 Bt. James's-walk, Clerken-
weU, a jeweller, was charged before Mr. Barker with
being drunk and disorderly at the Liverpool-road entrance
of the Agricultural Hall, Islington.
Police-constable James fiwanmore, 397 N, said—About
half-past 1 this morning I was on duty in the Agricultural
Hall, near the Liverpool-road entrance. I saw the
defendant, who was drunk, fall into a number of the pots
containing flowers that were placed there for ornament.
He damaged a number of them. I told the parties con-
nected with the hall, and the defendant satisfied them for
the damage he had done. He was removed from the ball,
and some ten minutes' afterwards be came back and en-
ileavfflired to force his way into the hall.
The defendant said he was very sorry for what had
occurred, and regretted that he bad got the worse for
liquor.
-Mr. Barker asked the constable if the defendant annoyed
anyone
The constable said that the defendant annoyed several
ladies by pushing against them. He prevented them from
getting to their carriages, and as he made a disturbance
and would not go away with his friends it was found neces-
sary to remove him to the police station. The defendant
was not bailed.

Mr. Barker (to the defendant)—Have you anything to
say in answer to the charge ?
The defendant—No, except to say that lam sorry to be
here to answer such •charge. It is all through the drink.
311.. Barker said the conduct of the defendant was very
ungentlemanly, and ordered him to pay a tine of 10s. ;
and in default of payment he would have to go to the
House of Correction for seven days.
The fine was at once paid.
William Hewitt, aged 42, described as a servant out of
place, and residing at 30, Northumberland-street, Maryle-
bmie-road, was charged with assaulting Mr. Edward
Liwmisoe, gentleman, residing at 26, Finsbary-square, in
the Agricultural Hall, between 5 and 6 o'clock this morn-
ing ; but as the complainant did not appear when the case
was called on, Mr. Barker discharged the defendant.
A,191,141(11 Field, a clerk, aged 23 giving his address at
177, liing's.crosaroad, was charged with being drunk and
incapable of taking care of himself in the Agricultural
Hall, and it having been stated by Police-constable John
Hicks, 259 N, that he saw the defendant drunk at between
4 and o'clock this morning, Mr. Barker discharged the
defendant.

Judo il;aekelford, aged 25, of 11, Richmond-buildings,
Dean-street, Soho, was charged with assaulting Edward
James and Morgan James, at the Liverpool-road entrance
of the Agricultural Hall, but u the complainants did not
appear Mr. Barker also discharged this defendant.
Charles Tea' aged 15, a labourer, of 5, Blaney-place,
Hollows was charged with steeling from the person
of Mrs. Lucy Ward, a housekeeper, of 40, Olford:square,
Islington, about 4s. eid. in silver and copper monies, and
five keys while at the entrance of the Agricultural! Hall,
Liverpool-road, but as the prosecutrix failed to attend,
Mr. Barker discharged the prisoner with a caution.
William Darling, aged 31, a carpenter residing at 30,
Seven Sisters-road, Holloway, was charged with assaulting
Edward Prior, a clerk, residing at 13, don-planet Pim-
lico, at the entrance to the Agricultural Hall, L pper-
street, Islington, at half-pest 2 this morning.
Mr. Barker discharged the defendant.
Edward Troyer:, aged 21, who described himself as a
labourer, having no home, was charged with stealing from
the person of Mr. Thomas Nicholls, watch dial maker, of
15, Ashby-street, Clerkenwell, a scarf pin, while outside
the entrance to the Agricultural Hall, in the Liverpool-
road.

Police-constable William Cox 143 Y, said that the
prosecutor was not in attendance; and be wished to know
what was to be done with the pm. The prosecutor had
given him the pin, stating that the prisoner had stolen
it from his scarf, and the prosecutor was the only witness.
The prisoner said he had s witness who was standing
by his side who Gould prove that he wee not guilty.
Mr. Barker discharged the prisoner.
George Cooper, aged 23, who gave his address at 21,
Prinoes-road, Marylebone, described as a labourer, was
charged with stealing from the person of Mrs. Btericker,
of 5, Highbury-park, Islington, a diamond brooch of the
value of 261. at the Liverpool-road entrance of the Agri-
cultural Hall.

Mr. Walter Stericker, said his wife was so ill from the
effects of charging the prisoner that she was unable to at-
tend the court to-day. The brooch had not been recovered.
Police-constable Philip Bradley, 121 Y said—This
morning, about half•partl, I was on duty at the Liverpool-
road entrance of the Agricultural-hall. I saw the prisoner
stretch out his hand over two of his companions
that were standing in front of him, and snatch
a brooch from the person of the complainant,
and run off immediately. The lady was standing
waing for her carriage. I followed him, never
lath sight of him, and captured him. I took the prisoner
to the police-station, and the lady having stated the charge,
the prisoner said ho knew nothing at all about it. He was
searched, but nothing was found on him. I did not tell
the prisoner at the police-station that I did not see him
take the brooch. The prisoner was sober.
Matilda Moos, of 4, Wakelield-place Bunhill -row, said
she was standing by the side of the prisoner and sew him
take the brooch and run off. She was quite positive he was
the man. _ _

The prisoner denied the charge, and said that
he was apprehended simply because he was running. He
knew nothing of the robbery, and accounted for his being
near the hall by stating that be had simply gone there
for the purpose of seeing the sight, and as for his having
companions with him that was all moonshine.
Mr. Barker remanded the prisoner for the purpose of
giving the police an opportunity of recovering the stolen
prowty.
The prisoner was then removed.

THE LORD MAYOR OP LONDON AND THE
LORD PROVOST OF EDINBURGH.

Ate meeting of the Town Council of Edinburgh
on Wednesday the Lord Provost made reference to his visit
to Paris. In the course of his observations he said—You
appointed me to represent the corporation at the distri-
bution of prises in • Palace of Industry on the lit of July.
Six members of the corporation volunteered to accompany
me at their own expense, and I gladly availed myself of
their offer. You doubtless saw, a week ego, scene aoeount
of the proceeding on the occasion. It was my intention only
to say, that at the grand ceremonial, presided over by the
Emperor of the French, the dignity and prestige of Edin-
burgh as the capital of an ancient kingdom were fully main-
tained. Something more, however, requires to be men-
tioned, in consequence of a newspaper account of what took
place at a meeting of the Common Council of London on
Saturday last, According to that account, which has
appeared in the Edinburgh newspaper. the Lord Mayor
unfortunately makes some mistakes, to which I have felt it
my duty to call his lordship's attention in the following
letter :

" City Chambers, Edinburgh, July 15, 1857.—My Lord,
—ln • newspaper report of a meeting of the Common
Council of on Saturday last, I observe that some
remarks were made by your lordship concerning the
late civil deputations at Paris which require notice.
1. You are stated to have said that while in Paris
you left cards with me in return for mine. I can only say
in reply, that I never saw any cards left or seat by you.
2. You Mated to have said, ' That the Lord Pro-
vost joined them (the London Corporation) in his carriage.'
This is &be a mistake. Complimentarily, and to please
the French in theway of processions, our party, in three
carriages, came to your hotel to go along with you, an ar-
rangement with which you appeared to be satisfied. Tired
out, however, bywaiting during your protracted lunch, and
seeing no appearance of moving at the appointed time, we
drove off at twenty minutes to one o'clock, and arrived and
were seated at the Palace of Industry considerably before
the London Corporation. 3. Yon are stated to have
said—' Talking of discourtesy, he might state that the
Lord Provost of Edinburgh absolutely raised the question
whether he had not the precedence over him as Lord
Mayor of London.' This I absolutely de v. I never
raised any such question. MI I ever said was that I
was solicitous to avoid any contest as to precedency with
the Corporation of Dublin, regarding which there had
occasionally been an unpleasanti collision. My choice or
frank acceptanos of eight tickets, numbered immediately
after yours, two days previous to your being in Paris, is
a sufficient proof that I never raised, or thought of raising,
the question of precedency with London. I trust to hear
that you have been misrepresented by the newspapers in
the foregoing pa
the remain your lordship's obe-
dient servant W. CHL/11/3ZRB, Lord Provost.—The Right
Hon. the Lord Mayor of London"
It is far from my wish to provoke any dispute with the
Lord Mayor of London ; but since the muter has been
brought above board, I am in self-defence bound to vindi-
cate myself as well as the gentlemen who accompanied me.
I cannot imagine how the Lord Mayor should think that we
went in a procession along with him. To be friendly,
we tried it and failed. My feeling was that, in pro-
tractedly waiting at the Lord Mayor's hotel, we were only
embarrassing his lordship's family ; Derides, as our party
were in open carriages under a broiling sun, me further de-
lay was scarcely practicable, and we moordin y proceeded
alone. Driving up the Champs Elyse*, amidst the cour-
teous salutations of the French troops ranged on either
side, we arrived at the Palace of Industry, I should think,
twenty minutes to half an hour before the party of the
Lord Mayor. At this part assigned to the 9
lions, the front bench comprehended eleven seats. ega
Zs,
and three of the second row, were, as a matter of course,
left for the occupancy of the fourteen members of the
London Corporation. We never for a moment thought of
taking the front row. We all along knew that Edinburgh
stood second in point of precedency with London, and,
along with Rallies Handyside and Skinner, I had taken
certain tickets numbered y. My seat happened
to be fourth on the second row. eat, coming after our
party, were the members of the Corporation of Dublin,
headed by their Lord Mayor, with whom I had the plea-
sure of interchanging courtesies on that and other *am-
sions. As every one's ticket was numbered in corre-
spondence with a number on the back of the seat, there
was not anywhere the slightest collision. I never saw a
thing more beautifully managed. The whole arrangements
reflected the greatest credit on the French authorities.

The Pope has signified his intention of pausing a
few days on the borders of the Lake of Albano, in the Ro-
man Campagna, to repose himself from his meant
fatigues.