The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-03 00:00:00

LIFEBOAT BERVICES.—During the storms
et the past year the National Lifeboat Institution oats
iiihnted to the saving of 1,092 lives front various shipwrecks
Ina SIS molds from destruction. The Institution also expended
/131..4.5 In the same period on its Lifeboat F....bnigments,
In
addition to granting 43.110 for reward..
The Committee of the Institution earnestly appeal to the
public foe assistance to amble them b. rucet the continued
'wen demands on their IBS Lifeboat Establishment&
s.lontributlons will be thankfully received by the London end
country hankers. sad by the Racretary. Richard LewiL Esq., at
the I toUttnion, id. John-street, Adelpht, London.

- - _
PAIN EXHIBITION FIRST-CLAES BIL% EB, MEDAL, IMT
UkiN BROGDE.N.

J'
GOLD r ItNo UFACTO. ELY,

JOHN BROGDENI3 18-carat GOLD CHAINS.

JOHN BROGDRICS GOLD GUARD CHAIRS.
- --

JOHN BROODER'S GOLD ALBERT CHAINS.

JOHN BILOODKNI3 GOLD BROOCH MAINS.

BREAKFAST.-EPPS'S COCOA.

ehe ervreoo.

TO CoI.IIXIOO2IDENI3.
adverttlemente Intended for "The Szpreee," London Wean/
Paper, mut he at the (Mee, 10, loaverbeetreet, by Two
tfelock on the dal of pubUasUci.

BATII ARICKT.
TEIN F:vEstera, TBF, BROKEN-BEAN/TB CLCR—A vnins
WELL Dew& Menem Ituekstone, Howe, Kendal.
It.ger3, Braid. Wealhereby. M.: and MDs Robertena.—Attar
which AN CITKR PEA-VERSION OF TDB BRIGAND.

PRINCESS'S
TRIS Ertatad, TUE COLLIE' DAWN. Mr. and Kra. Dion
Boucle...ult.—After which THE MEETS OF LONDON. Mr.
Vining, Messrs. Murray, Shore, Neville, Forrester, Melina, Re.
Miura glawurthy, E. Harnett, Rachel Sanger, and sirs. Addle.

STK An O.
IHI9 ETtinnt, OLD SALT.. Mr. Emery and Miss Nett, Moore.
—A Her which TOE CALIPH OF BAODAD Messrs. Thorne
and Janus: Alesdmunt Ada Swanlmrough, Johnstone, Harland,
Holt, dtc.—Aucl COAL AND COKE.

HOLBORN.
Tate manta, TAR FLYING ~CUD. Mears. Attire, MOD,
Ganten. Arthur, Wedlaud, end Wliniott ; Mesdames II enrade,
t.omlall, Lennox, and Sounder.--Conclude with VALENTINE
AND OR.SON. Millie. Montero, Little Rowena, ker.

ARITA NNLa.
TRW Eraftwo, UPSIDE DOWN.—DON QUIXOTE. Ms. S.
Lane, A Minn.; Edwin and Ronal Pantomimist, Steam Deane.
Louis, Newham, and VlC...rein Afdlle. e Stephan uwi MIAs Bose
Nathan.—To condo& with THE PRAIRIE FLOWER.

MOO WATRIL AT LOYDON KRIM&
DAy —Worlds& Bb. Shs......Aftemnoa. Bb. 68im.
tallOnow—Marain. 9k 3792 ..Aft•rnooo, 1011. 16ft.

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3.

Tin: judgment given on Friday in the Court of
Common Plats in the case of " Gams!. rerstis
" Blusrowe and Another," involves a very

serious question as to the mode of dealing

usual on the Stock Exchange, and will, if up-

held, be productive of consequences far more im-
portant than might at first sight be anticipated.
The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff,
Mr. GRIMEL, was a holder of shares in Overend,
Gurney, and Co. at the time of the stoppage of
that Company, and, wishing to get quit of the
liability (:ird. upon each 30/. share), sold them in
the market at a heavy loss. In accordance with
the ordinary course of business, they passed
through the hands of a dealer or jobber, who
practically acts as middleman between buyer and
seller. At the time of the settling day the dealer
(Mr. Ilm,row in this case) gave the names of
the transferrees who had agreed to purchase the
shares. Tho transfers were regularly executed by
Mr. GRIMM., but the books being closed the
transaction could not be completed. The plaintiff
being thus retained on the register of shareholders
had to pay a heavy call, and sought his remedy
against the dealer through whom the shares were
sold. The Court decided in the plaintiff's favour.
The first thing that will be apparent in reading
over the judgment is the disregard of the common
law of trule—that of regulating commercial trans:

actions by usage. A custom -that has prevailed

almost from the establishment of the Stock Ex-
change, and which everybody knows is invariably
acted upon, surely deserves some considenttion.
This is, we believe, the first time that it has been
legally disputed, and if the present precedent is
to be followed, the result will simply he to deal
a heavy blow to the authority of usage altogether.
According to Lord Chief Justice llovax, " the
" Court did not find in the evidence any usage
"or custom to the effect stated in the cane. "

The evidence must, therefore, have been singu-
larly deficient. There is not a stockbroker, a
dealer, nor a merchant inthe City of London, nor,
in fact, a very largo proportion of the general
public,who do not only know that the usage exists,
but that it has been uniformly acted upon. It is a
fixed regulation of a certain department of trade,
not concealed but thoroughly well understood,
and one would think, therefore, that it should not
be set aside except upon much more solid reasons
than the Court of Common Pleas have furnished.
Turning to the question of right, it is difficult
to discover upon what ground the dealer is fairly
liable. He acts as the middleman, the medium
of exchange of shares from A on the one hand
to B on the other ; not, be it understood, between
the principals themselves, but through the agency
of their brokers, also members of the Stock Ex-
change. It is no concern of his whether the
shares he buys come from C, or those he sells go
to D. He relies in this respect entirely upon the
respectability of the brokers who apply to him. It
is true that by a private rule of the Stock Ex-
change, passed only a few years ago, he can claim
repayment of any loss by this kind of repudiation
from the brokers with whom he has dealt. But
there is one great difficulty in the way. The
Committee of the Stock Exchange are simply a
court of honour, and can only enforce their de-
crees by a sentence of suspension, or in the last
resort of expulsion. Suppose, for example, that the
brokers refused to pay on the ground that a
legal decision had held that the dealer alone wash
liable, and that such decision overrode any
bye rule of a private body. The Committee of the
Stock Exchange might thus be placed in an ex-
tremely difficult position. Either they would have
to permit an action at law between the broker i
and dealers—which, without express sanction, is
prohibited by Rule 61, and is so distasteful as to
be very rarely allowed—or they would have to
expel, and thus seriously injure, a member for an
avowed obedience to the public law as laid down
by the Judges. It is not impossible that in the
latter instance an action for damages might be
sustained. This, however, is an extreme instance,
and is only adduced to show how fu individuals
may be affected.
Again, it becomes a critical matter for the
dealer that when he has fulfilled his part of the
contract he should remain for an indefinite period
under a perhaps very large liability. Justice
DIMES stated this point clearly ; in fact, under the
existing system the purchaser has it all his
own way. A seller is obliged to deliver his shares,
but the buyer may defer registering the transfer
as long as he pleases. In the present case the
plaintiff sold at any price, to get rid of his liabi-
lity. The transferrees paid their money and took
their chance of the company being resuscitated.
If it had been so, the transfers would have been
sent in for registration. As it is, the company
proved a hopeless failure, and, as we have said,