The Express.
London, England, 1868-06-29 00:00:00

THE

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-('l'tilB DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(11ofort‘ Vie-Chancollor Gifford.)
IN RE 711 E bRISTOL AND NOUTII sobtoaszr RAILWAY
COMPANY.

This was a petitioiif;;"..the confirmation of s
sc.l erne of arrangement with croditors under "'rho
ltailway Companies Act, 18137," filed by the Bristol
and North 14omerset Railway Company on the 23rd
Novell bor bud. The scheme recited that the com-
pany laving powor to raise capital to the amount
et 27r/,0001.,. in 13,750 shares, had allottod only 1304
shores, had usued for the purchase of land and other
iiebte 365 fully paid up shares, and had "irregularly
d or registered in the names of porAons as share-
li. hats," 11,;1o2 fully paid up shares, leaving 3,02 d Khania
mi... I. hod not been dealt with in any way. The scheme
Wither recited as follows: 'Fho company had powcr to
borrow eh mortgage a bond of 91,0001. whoa the whole
capdabliould have been subscribed for, and one half paid
1.1.; and had power by a sub-equent act to rai,e n ldi-

I Atm , ' capital to the amount of 100,0001. by new shares
(a they had not issued), and to borrow on inortg
of 1111141 3;) 5001., when the additional capital should have
111'411 snbrcrilNst for, and one half paid up. Tiwir er.mdt in,
in lel cat of the parch:we of land. and for comp-Ilya-
ti, aluotinted in value to 4,(5i11. 17s. I Id. On tali 7th
of August, 1867, they arram,eil with
I and Fraser, tenants by ele!_tyit of
111.14.4.4 of slipertliiiitis bosh, to pay on tilt, 14
1511.4, In 4111,h Or ilelictiturea, 111,111,1.4 a..u,11111114,
lan). 11114.1114, to 7,:i951. and epic,' Th .y 1141 4411411'
1114 ilaols 41:31111I11,1• 111 11111 3111.1111 n of 3..):).0,w.. 3,1 I hit
It' debentures to the ittivi.int of 13 kOtiat.
tot 01 lIIV 111141, M 111141414, for "titer Vail. and Lloyd's
io.s fur other part amounting to 59000/. eimiti.my
lad no money or ammets, except plant to the value of
st i.ut The bite was about half r impleted;
and they niquired about 90,0091. to c i.npleto it.
'll.c scheme proposed as follows : the landowner
et editors, &tors, to the amount of 4.0611. 17s. Old., to be paid
iu eieli fait of the first monies to be raised by mortgage in
Lund. The 7,595/. Is. 11(1. to be next paid in cash out of
t :ante that monies. Thu other creditors !aiming to the
amount of 390,0001., to receive in discharge of their
clams fully paid up shares; such creditors to re-
turn their debts and deliver up their securities. The
t(enpany to have power to raise on mortgage or bond
150.1A0/., and no more, at 6 per cent. ; and the powers
( f issuing shares and of borrowing above proposed to be
exercised under the Companies Act, 1891, "in restitu-
tion for" the issue of shares and borrowing under the
sjecial acts.
Mr. Caldccott, for the company, supported the scheme.
Fle explained that all the directors by whom the " irregu-
laiities" had been committed, were dead, or had become
bankrupt, or had made assignments, and this was brought
forward by the present board as the only mode of securing
anything to the creditors. Re argued that the debenture
holders and outside creditors who appeared had no loon
(damn, inasmuch as they wore not affected, and hence
their consent to the scheme was not necessary.
Mr. Everitt, for creditors interested under the elegit of
Piercy and Fraser, supported the scheme, subject to cer-
tain amendments. Messrs. Kay, Q.C., and Renshaw,
Dolce, Q.C. and Fleming, Martineau and Lindley, for
various creditors, also gave a qualified assent.
Mr. De (lex, Q.C., and Mr. Gardiner, for two large de-
benture holders, opposed the scheme out and out.
The Vice-Chancellor (without hearing them) said, if there
were any parties who opposed, he must give judgment. The
result ot thc propoeedarrangement wouldbeto turn creditors
into more shareholders, and to deprive them of their secu-
rities. Now what the Lord Chancellor Cairns had said
in the Cambrian Railways case (Law Reports, ch. 3, app.
296) was as conclusive as could be, " that

he could not read the act as giving it any
force or validity, much less the force of an enact-
ment, as against outside creditors, that is, general credi-
tors or unpaid landowners. The persons against whom it
was to have effect were those assenting to it or
bound by. it, that is, those who had actually
speed to it, or those who were declared by the pre-
vious lectures to be bound; in other words, the
majority and the minority of the various classes
who,e votes were to be taken. These dicta were
perfectly plain, and his Honour had no hesitation
111 saying that he could not consider the act as binding any
outside creditors without their consent. The petition
must therefore be refused with costs, to be paid by the
directors, but he should allow no costs of creditors who
had not put in au appearance. The assenting creditors
might waive their costs, but that must be out of court.
Mr. W. Pearson appeared for creditors who had not
put in an appearance.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall.—(Before Mr.
Justice Lush and a Common Jury.)
WOLP V. LORD RIVERS.
This was an action for a bill of exchange for 1201.
When the jury were called several members of the Jewish
persuasion answered to their names, and went Into the
box, upon which the defendant's counsel took the un-
usual course of challenging them, the plaintiff being a
member of that body. The jury retired from the box
and were again called, and on the first Jew answering to
his name he was challenged ; but upon his lordship stat-
ing that reuse must be shown the challenge was with-
drawn, and the jury was composed and sworn as in the
first instance.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Rempe, were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Huddlinton, Q.C., and Mr. Cole-
ridge, for the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins, in stating the case, said the plaintiff
ninny years; since carried on the business of an army agent
in Bond-street, and now lived retired at Clifton-gardens,
Maids-bill, and this action was brought to recover the
value of a bill of exchange for one month for 1201., drawn
by Captain Charles Pugh, and accepted by defendant, who
was then Colonel Horace Pitt. Thedefendanthadpleadod
six pleas, and amongst them the statute of limitations.
After the bill became due Captain Pugh made an arrange-
ment with his creditors, and the defendant kept out of the
way until he came to the title and estates by the death of
the late Lord Rivers. Application was then made for
,1
payment, and a correspondence took place upon which
the plaintiff relied on a written promise to pay which took
it out of the statute of limitations.
The plaintiff was called. Ho deposed that the bill
was drawn by Captain Pugh, and accepted by Colonel
Pitt. He gave 1001. for the bill, 931. cheque, which
was paid, and 71. for a warrant of attorney, as
collateral security which bad since been lost. I
think I handed the cheque to Captain Pugh, who after-
wards applied to the Insolvent Court ; he owed me 2001.
exclusive of this bill, of which I was paid 401. I never
beard or saw anything of Lord Rivers until he succeeded
to the title and the estates.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huddleston—l cannot swear
that I handed the cheque to Mr. Abrahams, ray then at-
torney, who handed it over to Captain Pugh.
Mr. S. B. Abrahams—l was acting as the plaintiffs
attorney in 1853. I have a very indistinct recollection of
what took place relative to this transaction. I find an
entry in my book of the 931. I have an entry of 51. Le.
for the warrant of attorney, but no particulars of
it. I believe I paid the cheque to Captain Pugh.
The correspondence between the attorneys was put in
and read, upon which
Mr. Justice Lush said there was no evidence to take the
ease out of the statute of limitations.
Mr. Iluddheton said that Lord Rivers had no part of
the money. If be bad had any portion of it ho would
have felt himself bound to pay it, notwithsboul;ug the
statute of limitations.
A verdict was then entered for the defendant.