The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1850.

the &mum which bed ben put ha to the madames
was, whether the Nanette' Lad Company was • joist-
stock oempuy eater the 7& 8 Yis., et 110, s. 2? By that
seen km the sestet* wee applied to env. eel classes or composite
established fee the wpmm of recite It was essteaded by
the proonestov, on two grenade, that this sompaay was •
company established for the purposes of I rolt—first, that
the directors wens to be seepoweged to bay sad sell lead j
gad that the Nat 'harp, whist would seine Gem &Dee-
ms", would be • seam of profit. Bet It appeared to the
esurt rail that pepsine. bad set been maintained. The
goveraios plaid* of the eseepeay was, the purchase of
bud by teat raked by estmarapekm, ad the &ebbs of
the brat by alielateat amongst Om subsceribrah Etch sub.
mites, wee M obtaia the advantages and enjoyment is
severally ratios hied allotted to him, with the buildings and
impreraussats duress; but these advantages "played by
the bedividual shetelleidere amid not fral withia the este.
gray sipailts eras* (rem du heads of the sompsay, and
this, raderafores Praelisd epee is the argentrat. With respect
to the powers cordoned spathe mempay for selling land,
these powers were era for the purposes of profit, but were
labsidiary only to the governing pried* of the company
which we. that of providiag &nemesia It would be seed-
&natal only if profits wore suctra by the earache of thne
powers, the 'rani.* of which was clearly not the:pupae
for widish the company was established. With respect to
the resit charge of 6 per coax, although it would ic-
iness the funds of the company, such lactose@
was sot like the profits analog from labour and capital,
employed for eammennal or trading purposes, but was in the
'MUM of • farther subscription, and not of profits on capital.
As it was the opinion of the court that judgment' should be
for the deftsdant on this point, it became unnecessary for it
to decide the other question as to whether there was good
ground or sot for the objective made of the illegality of the
oompany, as the ground of its beiag in infringement of the
IMAMS agalsst lotteries.
Judirearat for the &deadest.
TUX Wsei COttnerALL RAILWAT V. Heiser.
This was an action for calls, and at the trial • special
verdict was takes, on the feats of which the case was now
pruested to the "curt.
It appeared that the company had 4,960 usarpropriated
@hareem hand, and that the defendant had speed to take
the whole of thee@ abates. I. ouserquesee of this agree-
ment, the defendant's name was entered, without further
authority, upon the list of shareholder'. Calls were made
upon the shares, and the defendant was called upon to pay
the calls upon the unappropriated share', which had been
made over to him He resisted the demand,
relying upon the inutility of the agreement, the
company baring agreed that as soon so 161. a share
was paid upon the shares, it 'toed, whirs it was in a peal
tion legally to do so, deliver to him mortgage debentures,
allowing him a discount of 26 per cent. The illegality was
in this stipulation, it being contended that the company had
no power to issue debentures except for money actually had
and received. The facts of the .see were agreed ups at the
trial, that this point might be submitted to the court.
Sir F. Kelly, on the pert of the company, contended
that the defendant was liable, under the statute, to pay the
calls, inasmuch as the tacts of the Mil were such
as to have constituted him a shareholder. The quer
tier was, whether he was a shareholder or sot.
He had bees duly entered upon the register as such, and his
subsequent tzarractioas with the company amounted to •
to. &manes by him of his regisuation u • shareholder. In
support of this proposition, some letters were relied upon,
which had been written by the defendant. If he was •
shareholder, and, as such, liable fcr the calls under the
ttatuta ; the qiierion was, whether the stipulation alluded to
vitiated, on the KM of illegality, the agreement, which was
at the foundation of his alleged liability. He
(Sir F. Kelly) contended that the contract was
complete, independently. of the stipulation, and that
the stipulation, being dittoed from the agreement, could not
be taken as part and parcel of it so as to vitiate it. Ruing
made out that the defendant we. • shareholder, having bus
registered as such, and confirmed the registration, after he
had b: came possess dof the shares oa • perfect sad intact
agreement, it was for the other sides to show that he was not
liable for the call,. He denied that, after ratifying his re-
gistration as a shareholder, the defendant could now contest
the consideration of tie agreement to take the shares, even
allowing that the stipulation vitiated the agreement. •
The Attorney• General, slur some preliminary objections
teeming reference to the Boding by the jury, cratended that
the register was but prima &cis evidence of the defendant
being • shareholder, and that it was competent for him to
show • rate of facto which would rebut that orideicee. In
doing this he sae at liberty to contest the consideration of
the agreement, in pursuazu of which his name was put upon
I the register. The consideration was contrary to public po•
licy and to the statute. sod could not be enforced. It would
have been a fraud on the other shareholders The agreement
and stipulation could not be regarded as independent
and distributive contracts. The consideration was in this
cue part and parcel of the agreemtnt, and the very fonedstioe
it,hoth Brunie, one and the tame agreement. This being
so the invalidity of the consideration vitiated the whole etrree•
meet, tad rebutted the intereera to be drawn from the
register, the registration having been consequent up is an il-
legal agreement. The company had so remedy against the
defendant as a shareholder. The action, it brought at all,
should have been brought epee the agreement, the illegellty
nt which might bare been est up as a defence. He submitted
that the lodgment of the,ecurt should be for the defeadant.
Sir F. Kelly briery rattled, dray iog that there was any-
thing illegal its the contract, is the sense in which illegality
would vitiate a contract. He welled upon the effect of the
registration' and contended that ',here was nothing In the
facts found be the special verdict to countervail that effect.
Lord Campbell, in &livens, judgment, 'aid that the
court was of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to judg-
ment. The queseion referred to the court by tt e special
verdict, was xenon, whether the defendant wu or was
sot the holder°, the shares. Were there no parliamentary
definition sa to who was • shareholtier, there might have
been a difficulty, as it might then bars bees said that the
gamine& wee one of tact for a jury to determine,
hut on referring to the ac's of parliament it was found to be
expressly enacted that the register should be prima bode
evi :race of who was • shareholder. The court tad therefore
to oateraine whether, on the faces found, the defendant
was • shuebolder. The jury found that he wee
registered as such, and that he afterwards ratified
the registration. A prime fade case we. therefore
established against him es a shareholder ; and the
question was, whether he had rebutted that rue. He
sought to do this by a certain stipulation "mating is
the speemenr. Were this a cage of an action upon the
agreement, a serious difficulty might have arisen, as, had an
Wigality beers proud in the consideration, that illegality
would have been a per feet answer to the action. But this
was not an solo' epee the agreement at all, but against the
defendant in his alleged capacity of a shareholder, for •
cause of satins which accrued when the calls were made
or became due. This being so, culd he defend blast':
against the action by any illegality in the con-
sideration of the @grummet, considering that the agreement
had boon partly rated spin, and that this was r.ot en action
upon it ; it did not lie with the defendant to shelter himself
behind • plea, that he bad been a party to an illegal bargain.
but, on looking at the agreement itself, he did not see then
it was tainted with illegality. The agreement wet simply,
that es soon as the company was in a position legally to do
so, it would give the debentures. The parties at the time
were both aware that the debentures conid not then be
rased, but it was evidently in contemplation that the com-
pany might possibly be empowered to do ea hereafter. There
was nodal in this to taint the stipulation with illegality.
For the reasons gives it was his opinion that jadenent
should be for tke plaintiffs.
The other j edger' contented, and judgment for the
plaintiffs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YEsTuwAy.

emus ai&PCO.
WILSON 1,

Mr. Atherton applied for a rale to amend the pleas in this
case. It was an 'mitts for breach of covenant in the sale
of a medical practice in Yorkshire. The coy neat was
that the defendant would introduce tkill plaintiff to his
paints for at least twelve soothe and do his best to enable
the plaistaf to practice amongst them as a surgeon and
apothecary. The defendant paid 601. into court aid tra-
versed the breaches alleged in the decimation. At the trial
before Mr. Baron Rolle. • verdict was returned for the
plaintiff for 3001. beyond the 601. sad a rale tor a new trial
wee obtained during the present term. On the 26th of
March, after the verdict, the defendant li-d ascertained that
the plaintiff at no time was qualified to pretties as an
apothecary, although he was a surgeon, and the 'mead
meat sought to be made was to restrict the pleas to three
breaches which related to his practising as an apothecary.
The plaintiff represented Martel( to be a qualified apotbe-
ay, whereas he was not. lie would be subj. et to penalties
if ha had practised as such, and the defendant could not be
held responsible for not havieg Introduced him in that
thought the objection was now too late, carhe heart
be-
sides it did not grd to the merits of the action. The plaiatiff
might not rave been able to practise wan apothecary, but
what was to prevent him from passing his esamicatioa and
becoming duly qualified, it the decadent had performed his
covenant, and iatrodumid him?
The rule wee refused.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—VEeTERDAT.
Banta Bra IL J. peer.
LOAD WILLIAM H , DLCIAAMD.
The deceased made Lis will es the 17th April, 1841, •
bachelor, but haring eubeequestly ~lied, he exeluted a
doarseut. purporting to be a codicil to such will. ills
lordship died on the 6th of Kay, in the present year. Oa
the application for probate of theme two papen, which was
monad for en the ground of the codicil hating ravived the
will,
The learned ledge woe of opini n that the codicil heel(
bad not been duly executed, • blank space appearing on the
nee of that instrument. He loft the partite to propound the
all if they thought proper to do 12, but he mud reject the
prinest motion.
A.RWILL AOLIMIT Lout.
Dr. Addles, opened the pleadings in this ease, but they
were not concluded whoa the learned judp 'Joe

COURT OF BANK RUPTCY.—TISTERDAY.
Mama Ms. Comunataisa HOLMOTI.
IN NE PTV! —PIREFIRINTILL PAYNNNTS.
This was the adjourned artificatis asemiag in the ease of
J. Plat, merchant, of Broad street.
Mr. Hawkiu supported the bankrupt.
Mr. Lawraate paid for Me as.igates, and urged that
the bankrupt was rot scald id to kb amino:ate at all. In
Ir2B he Ma beta Colby god by the lasolvent Deb ore