The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-29 00:00:00

;,TgE opX4

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DA.)

104171 TY COURTS.
(Before air W. Page Weod.)

tlI RE THE LIVERPOOL FINANCIAL ASSOCIATION, LIMITED

AND IIDUCXD.

This .aa a petition for the redaction of the capital of
the company from 500.000/. to 250,0001., and of the amount
of each share from 201. to 101.

Mr. W. M. Jame', Q.C., and Mr. Woodroffe supported
the petition, which was unopposed.
The Vice-Chancellor made an order that, lutvieg regard
to the general orders proposed to be issued, all that could
be done now was to direct advertisements in the London
Gazette (of a date to be fired), and in the Liverpool papers
to be named in the order of the petition for confirming the
reduction of capital which had been presented and was now
pending, end that it was proposed to settle the list of
contributories on a day (the date to be left in blank), that
day to be • day which would allow a calendar month after
the insertion of the advertisementa in the Gazetie, the
registrar to fix the daye accordingly.
IN RE " BARNES'S " SCHOLARSHIP. CAMBRIDGE
Mr. Druce, Q.C., appeared in support of this petition,
the object of which was to amend some recent regula-
tions which have been made affecting the Bell's Scholar.
ship, at Cambridge, and from which Barnes's Scholarship
was omitted by mistake. Under the old system under.
graduates were always admitted in Easter term. Now
their period of residence has been ordered to commence
in Michaelmas term. The examinations are always
held in the Lent term, and the result is that
men of two terms standing are frequently brought into
competition with others of Ave terms standing, which has
been found highly inconvenient. The object of the peti-
tion is to bring into competition only such candidates for
the scholarship as are of the same standing. Another
object of the petition was to make the electors chosen,
instead of officiaL

The Vice-Chancellor having been satisfied that he had
jurisdiction order Lord Komilly's Act, made the order as
prayed.

(Before Viee-Chaneellor Sir R. Malin.)
LkNOTON r..w.urs.7pAss ON NUAD.NA.

In this case, which was fully argued on Mond►y and
Tuesday last, his Honour gave judgment this morning.
Mr. Cotton and Mr. Morris were counsel for the plain-
tiff ; and Mr. J. Pearson and Mr. Currey for the de-
fendant.

In December, 1865, the plaintiff, Charles Langton,
being the holder of 22,000/. of the stock of the Grand
Trunk Railway of Canada, and being desirous of borrowing
6,0001, applied to the defendant for the purpose, and
after some negotiation an advance was effected for three
months at 74 per cent. per annum, the railway stock being
transferred to the defendant as security. About the
middle of February, 1866, the plaintiff sold the 22,0001.
stock so pledged at 42 per cent., and to enable him to
complete the transaction he applied, through his agents,
to the stockbrokers acting for the defendant
to be allowed to pay off the 6.0001. with interest
for the whole period for which the money had been
borrowed. The defendant, however, refused to re-transfer
the stock before the expiration of three months, and the
plaintiff, in consequence, was obliged to pay to the
purchaser the difference between the price at which
he agreed to »11 end the price at which the same
amount of stock was subsequently bought by the pur-
chaser, the amount of the difference being 8.90/. In pur-
suance of his contract Mr. Langton repaid the 6,0007. acrd
interest on the 28th of March, and thereupon the 22,000/.
stock was re-transferred to his name ; but subsequently,
on discovering that defendant bad on the 14th and 13th
of February sohl his stook at 46, and had afterwards
replaced it at a much lower rate, making, as it was
alleged, a profit of 3,0001., this suit was instituted to en-
force the plaintiff's claim to the profit so trade. The de-
mand was resisted by the defendant on the grounds, first,
that the contract was with Messrs. Price and Pott, the
stockbrokers, and not with Mr. Langton ; secondly,
that the sale end repurchase of the stock was
right in itself and in accordance with the contract - and
thirdly, that it was in accordance with the custom of the
Stock Exchange, which enabled the lender of money on
the security of stock to deal with such stock in soy way
he thought fit dunng the period of the loan. unless there
was an express stipulation to the contrary.
The Viee-Chancellor said the law was clearly nettled
that a principal might sue on a contract entered into on
his behalf by an agent though his name was wholly
concealed at the time of the transaction, and
in this case the parties ow both sides being
brokers the defendant must have known that
Messrs. Price were only agents for the borrower. But if
there had been any doubt upon the subject it must have
been removed by the production of the transfer executed
by the plaintiff. The second ground of defence also
failed, the law being that in the absence of express
contract, the pawnee of property octild not sell it
till the debt for which it was pledged became payable.
Then as to the custom of the Stock Exchange, which WY
the point mainly relied on. a custom which gave the
lender of money on security power to sell the security
whenever he thought proper would be manifestly unjust,
because it would place the borrower completely
at the mercy of the lender, who might con-
vert the security, appropriate the proceeds to his
own use, andat the expiration of the loan be unable to
band over to the borrower that which belonged to
him. And the evident*, including that of the deputy
chairman of the committee of the Stock Exchange, went to
show that there wee no rule or custom authorising
the sale of stock deposited as security. There was no
dispute u to the right to transfer the pledge to another
person, and it would be very hard upon the lender if he
were not permitted to do so ; but with regard to any power
of selling the security, the 64th rule of the Stock Ex-
change was eooclusive, the words being, " In all cases of
loans on the deposit of securities, the lender is bound to
return the identical »entities depoei ted, unless it is otherwise
stipulated at the time of making the loan." The defendant
had therefore no right to sell the stook, and if it had not been
fur that wrongful sale he would no doubt have been reedy
in the middle of February to »transfer the security-
to the plaintiff, who would have been saved
the loss incurred by him on the sale of the stock.
There mom be a declaration that the defendant was not
entitled to sell the :(2,000/. stock, and an account taken of
the proceeds of the sale, the amount so found to be handed
over to the plaintiff. The coats of the suit must be paid
by the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
rearm% AND NUKE r. WWI AND LOWI, MOORE

_I NTt RVINING.

Dr. Spin Pia, Q.C., Mr. ticeiirg,;n-41 Mr. Finney for the
plaintiffs ; Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Inderwiek for the
defendant. ; Mr. Muddleeton, Q.C., and Mr. Will for the
intervener.

The case on behalf of the plaintiffs was concluded. Mr.
Peake, one of the plaintiffs and partner of the testator;
Mr. Holdicb, the attorney who had been concerned in
drawing the will; Mr. Nisbet-Hamilton, M.P. ; Archdea-
con Trollope,the residuary legatee ; Miss Peaoock, and other
friends of the deceased gave very contident evidence in
favour of his perfect capacity. It appeared, however,
that in July, ItYlti, the month before the execution of the
will, his medical Attendants, Dr. Boot and Dr. Bissell,
bad made affidavits, with the sanction of Mr.
I'eake, to the effect that the testator was of unsound mind.
The explanation which theme gentlemen gave of the
transaction was that the deceased was perfectly unlit
to manage the business of a trust which de-
volved upon him, and that the affidavits were neces-
sary to support an application to the Court of Chancery
to relieve him from it—that his mind was really unsound
as compared with what it had been, and yet that
he was not in the least degree insane. Mr. Petite, as
has been already stated, believed him to be unable to
wake his will till the day before its execution.
He had, in fact, discouraged him from attempting Any
testamentary settlement of his estate, and is consequence
the testator had gone to Mr. Holdich. After this he renewed
the subject, and showed so complete a knowledge of his
affairs and such complete capacity that Mr. Peaks entirely
altered his opinion, and forwarded the making of the will.
Dr. Deane, in opening the ease for the
defendants, said that not the smallest imputation
was cast upon the integrity of the plaintiffs ;
it was only intended that the evidence already
given negatived the idea of the testator's ability to attend
Ito
business when the will was executed.

Before any evidence was given. however, negotiations
for a compromise were begun ; and the suit was ultimately
settled.

POLICE COURTS.-(THIS DAY.)