The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-16 00:00:00

THE POOR LAW BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
SIR,—At a meeting held at Manchester on the 12th inst.,
to consider the subject of the powers of the poor-law board,
the chairman is reported to have stated : " According to a
parliamentary return of last session, the cost of the central
poor-law establishment at Gwydyr-house, was £260,000 an-
nually."
No parliamentary return of the last or any proceeding
session will be found to contain or bear out this state-
ment.

on a. reibrence to the estimates for the current year, laid
before parliament last session, it will be seen that the entire
cost of the establishment of this board, including the salaries
of the president, secretaries, inspectors (with their travelling
expenses), clerks, messengers, and servants, together with
the law charges, and all incidental expenses, amounts to
£34,073.
The estimates comprise, besides this sum, the following
charges, which, although connected with the administration
of the poor-laws, form no part of the expenses of the central
establishment, and which, until the year 1846, were defrayed
exclusively out of the poor-rates, namely .
Salaries of the auditors of the poor-law unions...
Salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in
poor-law unions
One-half of the expenses of the salaries of medical
officers in the several poor-law districts.. . 80,000
• According to the same estimates, the aggregate cost of the
poor-law boards for England, Scotland, and Ireland, includ•
ing the salaries of auditors, school-teachers, and medical offi.
cers, amount to £214,494.—.1 have the honour to be, sir
your obedient servant, .

£13,500

22,000

C
Poor-law Board, Whitehall, Dec. 13 OURTENA; Secretary,

COUNTY COURT JUDGMENT.

DEPUTATION TO LORD PALMERSTON.—A deputation, con-
sisting of Messrs. E. 11. Payne, mayor of Wallingford, John
Dalzell, magistrate, R. H. Allnatt, M.D., Edward Wells,
alderman, T. E. Field, alderman, and J. J. Allnatt, waited
on Lord Palmerston yesterday morning, by appointment at
tthe home-alike' and presented to him a memorial, signed by
the high steward, the mayor, the clergy, and other leading
inhabitants and tradesmen of the borough, praying for an
inquiry into a late decision of Mr. J. B. Parry, Q.C., • the
judge of the Berkshire county court.
The deputation was introduced by Mr. Richard Malins,
Q.C., the member for the borough.
It was represented to his lordship that Thomas Turner, a
labouring man, with a family of young children, and who is
also town-crier, had been convicted of an assault on Miss
Blackstone, the sister of the former member for the borough.
The offence complained of was of the mildest character,
Turner being accused of merely holding up his fists in a
threatening manner towards the complainant over the
shoulder of a man who stood before her. The lady
admitted at the trial that she was not even alarmed by the
conduct of the defendant. For this comparatively slight
offence the judge sentenced Turner to £5O damages
with full costs and immediate execution, and his goods
were taken under the legal process shortly afterwards, but
were insufficient to pay the costs. At a subsequent court the
judge, after inquiring into Turner's means, ordered that the
damages and costs should be discharged by monthly instal-
ments of 65., thus in affect alienating a considerable portion
of his weekly earnings for seventeen years prospectively, or
subjecting him, in default of payment, to repeated monthly
imprisonments during the whole of his future life, a process
which, so far from cancelling the debt, would materially in-
crease its amount by the addition of the heavy fees of the
court upon atery fresh imprisonment. The sum now due
from this poor man amounts to £6B.
The Mayor and the other gentlemen present bespoke his
lordship's consideration to the unprecedented severity of the
sentence, the discrepancy of the evidence on which the con-
viction was based, the absence of a jury, and the existence
of circumstances calculated to excite the defendant's resent-
ment on the occasion alluded to ; they moreover expressed
their belief that Turner was innocent of the alleged assault,
and respectfully urged his lordship to institute further
inquiry into the extraordinary case, with a view to such
ulterior proceedings on behalf of an honest and indus-
trious man as his lordship might think fit. Turner being
unable to pay the first instalment of 65., increased by costs to
£2 ls. 6d., has been committed to Abingdon gaol for thirty
days, and his family aro now dependent for support on the
Union funds. . .
Lord Palmerston, having listened with great attention
to the statement of the various speakers, stated that upon a
prima facie view of the case it certainly appeared one of
great hardship and cruelty. He was not, however, prepared
at the moment to say what ulterior proceedings ought to be
taken, but he assured the deputation that the matter should
receive his best attention.

The 11fAxon thanked his lordship, on behalf of the
town, for the courteous manner in which the deputation
had been received, and the parties then withdrew.—London
Paper.

LONDONDERRY AND ENNISKILLEN RAILWAY.—Traffic
receipts for the week ending Dec. 10, '1853 :—Passengers,
£lBO 3s. Od. ; goods and mails, £243 ls. 6d. Total, £423
4s. 6d. (41 miles open.) Corresponding week, 1852, £376
15s. Bd. (34 miles open.)
PXUZB MONEY.—The prize money to the Alecto for the
capture of a launch or boat, name unknown, on the 6th
December, 1851, will be payable on and after the 20th inst.,
at the following rates :--Flag, 171. 12s. aid. • commander,
331. 6d. ; third class, 91. 10s. 72(1. ; fourth class, 51. 14s.
41d. ; fifth class, 3/. 6s. 81d. ; sixth class, 2/. 17s. 24(1. ;
seventh clas-, 1/. 18s. lid. ; eighth class, 19s. id. ; nia t
class, 11s. 101,(1.; tenth class, 78. lid.

COURT 017 CHAJVCERY.
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR" AND THE LORD JUSTICE

TURNER.
Ex parte Nielson in re Edmond—Bankruptcy.
This was are hearing of a matter heard before the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, in August, 1850. The petitioners
were the Messrs. Nielson, sharebrokers, of Liverpool; and
they prayed that the assignee of W. and T. Edmond, bank-
rupts, might be directed 'to execute a transfer of shares of
the Royal Assurance Company, contracted to be sold by
them for W. Edmond. In June, 1845, a prospectus was
issued for the formation of a joint stock assurance company,
at Liverpool, with a capital of two millions in 100,000 shares
of £2O each. The company was completely registered pur-
suant to the 7th and Bth Vic., c. 110, and in July Mr. W.
Edmond had an allotment of 200 shares, on which he paid
the premium of 15s. a share, together with the first call of
20s. a share. On the 3rd of December, Mr. W. Edmond
event to Bombay, leaving his brother Thomas a power of
attorney to act for him. On the 9th of December a further
call of 20s. per share was made and paid by Thomas, and a
receipt given for it by the officers of the company. There
had been no execution of the deed of settlement on the part
of William when he left England, and it never was executed
in consequence of the doubts that were raised on the question
of the power of attorney extending to such an act as the
execution of the deed. In January, 1846, instructions were
given to the Messrs. Nielson to sell the 200 shares, and they
accordingly sold three parcels of eighty, fifty, and twenty-
five shares to different parties. Notice of these sales was
given to the secretary of the company, and being approved
of, transfers of the shares were duly executed by Thomas
Edmond and by the purchasers ; but as the solicitor of the
company was of opinion that the transfers could not be re-
gistered until the deed of settlement had been executed by
`William Edmond, the registration of the deeds of transfer
was postponed. On the 6th of March, 1846, the Edmonds
became bankrupts, and their assignees, after some correspon-
dence and inquiry, refused to concur in the transfer of any of
the shares sold for W. Edmond by the Messrs. Nielson, and
Mr. Commissioner Skirrow decided that, as William Edmond
had not been duly registered as a shareholder (which he could
not have been from the deed of settlement not being ex-
ecuted), all that had been done was inoperative, and tht
assignees entitled to the shares as part of the assets of the
estate of Messrs Edmond. The question turns principally
on the construction of the 26th section of the statute, which
provides, " with regard to subscribers, and every person en-
titled or claiming to be entitled to any share in any joint-
stock company, the formation of which shall be commenced
after the Ist of November, 1844, that until such joint-stock
company shall have obtained a certificate of complete regis-
tration, and until any such subscriber, or person, shall have
been duly registered as a shareholder in the said registry
office, it shall not be lawful for such person to dispose by sale
or mortgage of such share, or of any interest therein, and
that every contract for sale or disposal of such share or
interest shall be void, and that every person entering into
such contract shall forfeit a sum not exceeding ten pounds."
The Vice-Chancellor, on appeal from the decision of the
commissioner, held that the claim of the Messrs. Nielson
was against public policy, and that it- was ,not for the public
good that such securities should be put up for sale or treated
as negotiable. His Honor, however, gave the parties leave
to take the opinion of the Court of Exchequer on the point
of law. The matter has not been carried to the Exchequer,
the parties preferring a rehearing in this court.
Mr. James Russell and Mr. Eddie were for the appellants ;
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Smythe in support of
the order of the court below.
Wilkinson v. the Anglo-Californian Gold Mining Com-
pany (21 Law Journal) The Gold Minine Company v.
Westoby (8 "Exchequer Reports") ; Micklethwaite v. Mae-
merino (5 Meeson and Welsby) ; Austen v. Craven (4
Taunton) ; Sutton v. Tatham (12 Adol. and Ellis) ; Baylis
v. Butterworth (14 "Term Reports"), and several others,
were cited in the course of the argument.
At its conclusion, the Lord Chancellor directed the case to
be in the paper for judgment on Thurday next.