The Express.
London, England, 1861-07-02 00:00:00

ISDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1861.

Sabo inttiligente.

EQUITY COURTS.—JOLT 1.
(Mare Vice-Oharosliar Sir Jobs Stuart.)
TIE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOTED SAILWAT CONTANT
O. THE WENT-END OTy LONDON AND CIMITAL PALACE
NJJLWAT COVENANT AND TEC LONDON, HILIUHTON, AND
SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANT.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction which was
last week panted by the Vice-Chancellor, restraining the
West-end Railway Company from proceeding with an
action which they had commenced against the
plaintiffs for the recovery of the interest on
a sum of 100,200 k It appeared that by an
agreement entered into in April, 1859, and which was sanc-
tioned by parliament in 181..0, the plaintiffs agreed to pur-
chase from the defendania, the Weetend Company, • por-
tion of their extension line to Farnborough, in Kent, for a
sum of 100,2001., payable on or before the let of January,
1864, with interest at 4 per cent. from January, 1859 ; and
the agpreement provided that after the Ist of January, 1859,
the plaintiffs might take the net profits of such part of the
Farnborough Extension Line as might be opened, and set them
off agaiest the interest payable to them, and that the plaintiffs
might inspect the accounta of the receipts and expenditure
of such hoe. The West-end Company in April, 1800,
brought an action against the plaintiffs for a sum of 8,0934
in respect of arrears of interest. The plaintiffs by their bill
alleged that profits to • large amount had been realised,
although the defendants contended that losses had in fact
been incurred, and • few days since the plaintiffs obtained
(ex•parte) an ieterim order restraining the defendants from
proceeding with their action, but giving the usual under-
taking as to damages.
Mr. Molt, Q.C., Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr. Taylor now
moved to dissolve this injunction, on theground that it was
not stated to the court when the injunction was granted
that the defendants had delivered accounts, and that dis-
cussions had taken place as to whether there had, in fact,
been any profits.
Mr. Mains, Q.C., and Mr. Kerslake appeared for the
plaintiffs.
The Vice-Chancellor said that if he had known that the
dr/andante had delivered accounta, and that discussions had
takes place as to the amount of the profits, be would not
have granted the injunction, which must now be dissolved,
with wets ; but without prejudice to the undertaking as to
damages, with liberty to the plaintiffs to amend

COURT OF COMMON NAZAR —JULY 1.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Pram m Isedion—(Before Mr. Jostle
Keating and a Camas Jury.)
aciwitnrs r. RUTIMOL—ALLIZED MAUD.
The plaintiff in this case claimed damages upon the ground
that he had been induced by certain false representations to
take shares in an iron company in payment of the price of a
yacht.
Ur. O'Malley and Yr. Meodoneld amassed for the plain-
tiff ,• and Mr. V. Williams for the defesdant.
The plaintiff's counsel said that he undertook to satisfy
the jury that this was a ease of the most fraudulent kind.
The plaintiff was a young gentleman who was a captain in
the Warwickshire Militia, and the defendant was formerly
M.P. for the City of Dublin, and was sometime. called
" Colonel" and sometimes only plain " Mr." In 1859
the plaintiff was quartered at Plymouth, sad he
had at that time the yacht Kathleen, for which
he bad given 700/. Upon leaving Plymouth he ad-
vertised the yacht for sale in Belts Life, and received in
consequence a communication from the defendant, who
dated, from the Cevendish Club, Regent-street, and enclosed
a very taking card with arms and supporters upon it. The
price of the yacht was agreed at 3,W. and it was also
greed that a bill should be taken, provided' it was backed
with a good came. The defendant said Mr. George Knight,
who was a most respectable man and a magistrate, would
sedans the bill. Some time afterwards Mr. Hankies went
to the office of Mr. George Knight and noticed that the
Diane was spelt "Knights," but the dthesitat explained
this saying, "My dear sir, there ass two of them, so we
are obliged to put the ' s." (Laughter.) Mr. Howkius was
induced to take shares in the Cardiff and Caerphilly Iron
Company as seratity, and be was registered for shares, but
the tint thing he heard of the company was that it was
being wound up, and be was called upon to pay 751. as a
contributor on account of the shares.
Captain Howldne said that after some eorrespoodethe be
was setradneed to the defendant and Mr. George Knight,
whom the defendant said was a magistrate for the county
of Norfolk. W linage wrote the bill of thehaap at the de-
fendant's direction, and the defendant told him to antedate
it one mouth. He also told witness that be should leave
the money for it in a day or two, as his friend, George
Knight, would diseount it. Wither got no money on the
bill, but he Sande:red the yacht to the defendant.
Mr. Howkine, the plaintiff's father, said be maw the de-
fendant and Height at the Bedford, and told the defendant
that the bill given to his son was valueless, as there was no
third name upon it. Defendant said he would give another
bill, but said, ' I have no merry for a stamp ; but if you
get the stamp I will pay you another time." Witness got
the stamp and the bill wee drawn ; but the defendant would
not have it made payable at his beaker's, and it was
made payable at his friend Knight's office, ia St.
Bennett s-place, Gracecharebetreet. The defendant said
Mr. Knight collected his route, 8001. a year, for
him. The defendant said he lived at Grove-place, Dulwich,
but witness afterwards found that there was no ouch place
at Dulwich. He found a Grove-end-place at Camberwell,
and he called at the number he had been directed to. The
door was opened on the chain, but a voice inside said that
Mr. Ruthven's letters were left there. This voice was
Height's. Witness then went to Knight's office, and was
told that if the landlord could duly get the rent he would
tura him out. Witness called at the Cardiff Company and
saw the defendant, and told him that unless he gave the
money for the bill he should expose him before the direc-
tors. He said he had paid 500 i. to the company the day be-
fore, and he would apply to them to let him have WI. of
it. He said he himself was a director, and it was a first-rate
affair. He said Mr. John Bistdulph, of Swansea, was about
to take 1,000 shares and become a director, and then the
shares would be at a premium of SW. Soma excuses were
made for not getting the money, sad wither reoeived sham
as security for the bill. Defendant mid that M'Craw had
lent him some of the shares, and it would be neces-
sary to retain the bill ; but witness objected, and tore his
sons name from it. No mosey bad ever been paid. The
shares purported to be paid-up shares, but he understood
that they were not paid up, and be had not been able to
find that there was anybody is the eampany but SPCraw
and the defendant.
Evideooe was then given ea to the state of the Iron
Company, and it appeared that the transfer was on the 21st
April, and the petition for adjodicatiou on the 18th October
following, the debt of the petitioner being 821. It also ap-
peared that, though the shares in question were called
" paid up"—no money had, in fact, been paid on them. A
number of shares were called'' proprietor's shares" and they
represented AGM for the purchase of the mine, in addition
to 20,000/. in cash. Nothing had been paid.
Some letters were also put in written by the plaintiff's
father to the defendant. They were written about the be-
ginning of May, and were addressed, " My Dear Colonel
Ruthven," and in one of them it was stated that the de-
fondant hadin every respect behaved uprightly and honour-
ably.
Mr. Williams complained of the hard terms used of the
defendant, saying that his client bad been ruined is ors-
sequence of his connexion with this company.
After some discussion it was arranged that the jury
should be discharged in reference to the count for fade
representation, and that there should be a verdict for the
*Stiff upon the comet for goods sold.
Verdict for the plaintiff for Moth.