The Express.
London, England, 1850-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-OUILDFORD, AUGUST 12.
SUOMI 1111 LOUD CHIRP BARON AND A PPICUL
FLAITBICIL V. LAINO.

This was an action of Mr. Chambers, Q C., Mr.
Peacock, and Mr. Willem were for the plaintiff ; and Ser.
just Channell for the defendant.
The declaration alleged that the pleiotiff had been duly
elected t director of the London and Brighton Railway, and
that the defendant, who is the chairman of that company,
unlawfully expelled him from the board room and assaulted
him. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had not been
duly elected as • director, sad that he was therefore jus-
tifi sel in preventing him from being present at their meeting.
Mr. Chambers said that the question which the jury were
now about to inquire into was one of a very important and
interesting character to all persons connected with rail-
ways. The plaintiff in this action was a well known emi-
nent engineer, and he was the original constructor of the
Brighton Railway, and had been for many years connected
with it as a shareholder, and at the time of this prosecu-
tion he held debentures of the company to the amount of
10,0001., and consolidated stock to the ext,nt of 25,0001.
Having, therefore, so large an interest in the undertaking,
he was anxious to become a director, in order that he
might in that capacity attend to his own interest, and, of
course, at the same time, to that of the other shareholders,
and the case on the part of the plaintiff was that he had
been legally appointed a director, and that the de-
fendant, who was the chairman of the board, had impro-
perly prevented him from fulfilliog the duties of his dike.
The action was brought in the form of an assault, bet the
jury would understand that there was no imputation of any
personal violence being actually exercised, but in reality the
charge was • mere point of form, and the real qui scion in-
volved in the inquiry was, whether the plaintiff had been
legally appointed a director or not. The learned counsel
then proceeded to state, that at the latter end of last year,
two of the directors died, and the chairman exercised the
power given him by the Act of Parliament, of filling up
the vacancies that were thus created, by appointing two gen-
tlemen in their places. namely, Mr. Beaumont Hickey and
Mr. Lushingtoe, M P. The first of these appointments created
some dissatisfaction among the shareholders; fora:though no
doubt Mr. Flukey was • most respectable gentleman, yet
ha was only 21 years of age, and the shareholders considered
that he could not possess sufficient experience to qualify him
to set for the advantage of their undertaking in the capacity
of director. In January of the present year, in accordance
with the provisions of the company's let, three of the direc-
tors—Me sars. Schuster, Nicks, and Lushington—retired
from the direction, but offered .themselves for re-election ;
and on the 29th of January the election came on. The plain-
tiff on that occasion offered himself as • candidate ; and, on
the show of ha. ds being taken for the few gen-
tlemen, the chairman said that the numbers were
so equal for Mr. Schuster and the plaintiff, that
he could not decide whisk had the majority, and
he called fee a second show, which he decided to he In
favour of Mr. Schuster. A poll was demanded on behalf of
Mr. Bestride, and the !lolling took place immediately, and
closed at 8 o'clock in the evening ; and it then appeared
that Mr. Schuster had the majority. The plaintiff claimed
to have been also cleated, inasmuch as no one appeared to
have polled for the other two candidate'', but the chairman
insisted that those gentlemen had been elected by the show
of hands; and he declared Mourn Schuster, Nicks, and
Lushlugton, to be duly elected. The question, therefore,
was, whether this was a legal proceewing ; and he should
contend that inasmuch as • general poll had been de-
manded, and the majority of votes was given
to the plaintiff and Mr. Schuster, that the for-
mer was legally chosen as a director, and that the
chairman had no pewee to declare the two other gentlemen
to have been elected by the show of hands. The plaintiff,
believing that he had been properly elected, expressed his
intention to avert his right to take • seat at the board of
director', end at the meeting that took place on the 4:h of
Much, he proceeded to the board-room for that purpose,
and he was sorry to say. that Instead of being civilly told,
that he could nut h' permitted to remain there, c r to take
any part in the prucedier, which was ell that would have
been neormary to raise the question of right, he was it, pped
by the porters with some rudeness, and pushed back and the
door shut In his face. Hs should prove these imp, and the
jury would then say, under the direction of his lordship,
whether this war not an illegal act oa the part of the de-
+indent, _ .

Mr. W. Shaw &pared that he wu a trantraotor for public
I works, end was els) a sharehr Ider in the Brighton Railway
to the extent of 9,0901. or 10.0001. lfe was present at a meeting
of the shareholders at the Bridge-hole Hotel on the 29th of
J inuary last, for the purpose of &prettying three directors.
The defendant was present as etuunnan of the meeting.
Sime observations were toad, by the shareholders relative
to Mr. liaithey having been spnointei a director, and it wu
stated that he was a Baer.: b.:y, and entirely unacquainted
with railway station. Mr. Sokuatar, Mx. Mick; earl L.