The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-26 00:00:00

LAW INT.

—Jai I. 25.

CHANCERY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY V. THE OXFORD, WOR-
CESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY.—THE OX-
FORD, WORCESTRR, AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY
T. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
The arguments in this case were resumed this morning.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. G. L. Ruesell, on be
half of the Great Western Railway, supported the in-
junction which his honour bad granted. They alleged
that the present application was one of a nature purely
application
to
Parliament n t intended as a g d
to repeal
re
peraolu
thend foraextension
and that as such it could not be entertained by the
court. The plaintiffs were bound to proceed, until
they obtained a repeal of their extension act, according
to the provisions of it ; and were not justified in taking
any steps to thwart the object of the Legislature, which
would be the case if they could get their injunction dis-
charged, after it had been recognised by Parliament.
His Honour had expressed his opinion on a former oc-
casion, and that opinion had been confirmed by statute.
Moreover, this was merely intended as a harassing and
vexatious opposition to tee working of the Great West-
ern line, and the application ought to be refused.
Mr. Molt, in reply, denied the charge of vexatious
opposition on the part of the plaintiffs ii the second
suit ; and after showing at some length that the
Oxfcrd, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Company had
ample means for carrying on their undertaking, and
contemplated, most positively, the doing so in strict
accordance with their act of Parliament, argued that, in-
dependently of the burthen imposed by that act, the in-
juction was in reality a clog upon their performance of
the duties imposed upon them by Parliament. They
would apply for a further and repealing act as speedily
as possible, and, in the meantime, the injunction should
be dissolved. They would still be' bound by the provi-
sions of the act, which they never had intended, and
did not now intend, to infringe.
The Vice-Chancellor reserved his judgment.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
HORN AND OTHERS Y. THE KILKENNY AND GREAT
SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. bolt and Mr. Amphlett moved for an injunction
to restrain the defendants, Edwards, Ratcliffe, and
Davies, from proceeding by writ of scire facia, against
the plaintiffs, or either of them, upon a judgment re-
covered against the above company for 4,4171., the
amount of a bill of costs alleged to be due to them by the
company. Tho bill was originally filed by the plain-
tiffs on behalf of themselves and all other shareholders
the company, except the defendants, to restrain the
directors from proceeding with certain actions,
brought by them for the amount of calls claimed
to be due upon the plaintiffs' shares ; the case made
on that occasion by the plaintiffs against the de-
fendants, the directors, being that the directors
had originally signed the parliamentary contract
for a very large number of shares ; that in the passage
of the bill through Parliament the line was cut down to
much less than its originally proposed length, and there-
upon much less capital was required. The directors
thereupon, behind the back of the plaintiff and the
other shareholders, struck off the whole of the unneces-
sary shares from those which stood in their own names,
without giving the other shareholders any option in the
matter. The directors alleged as their reason for se do-
ing that they had only signed the parliamentary con-
tract for so large a number of shares for the convenience
of the company and to satisfy the requirements of the
standing order, of the house and without any intention
of keeping them. The plaintiffs however claimed to have
the calls on those shares paid up by the directors. The
Vice-Chancellor thought there was a serious case to be
tried, and had granted the injunction on the terms of the
plaintiffs paying into court the amount of calls claimed,
to await the further order of the court ; and these
terms having been performed, the injunction had been
drawn up. Subsequently to that the defendants, who
were shareholders in the company, and had been through-
out the advisers and solicitors of the directors, had
brought an action against the company for the amount
of their bills of costs. The directors allowed judgment
to go by default, and the solicitors then selected two out
of the three plaintiffs against whom to proceed by scire
facial. The main ground on which the plaintiffs claimed
in equity to stay the proceedings was that the whole
proceeding was collusive between the directors aid the
solicitors, and done with a view of harassing and in-
timidating the plaintiffs from prosecuting their suit
against the directors. The plaintiffs farther alleged
in their affidavit in support of the motion, that the
bills had never been delivered or taxed, and that the
greater part of such bills was for costs incurred by the
directors in prosecuting two unsuccessful applications to
Parliament for extended powers, and further, part of
the costs was for other proceedings which they clearly
could not charge the company with. The defendants
were still acting as the solicitors of the directors, and
were defending the present suit. One of the defendants
had made an affidavit in which he denied that the pro-
ceedings were being carried on in collusion with the
directors, but did not expressly deny that they were
taken with a view to intimidate the plaintiffs from pro-
ceeding with their suit against the director,. The ac-
count given by the defendants in this affidavit was that
they had informed the directors that there was a large
amount due to them fox costs, and that the chairman
of the board cf directors said that the directors thought
the bills ought to be looked over by some person, and
that Mr. Dax, of the Temple, had been mentioned to
him as a gentleman who was in the habit of settling
bills of costs for the Great Northern and other rail-
way- esp....vaunts ; that the solicitors thersupoa etatcd
their willingness to comply with that suggestion, and
that the bills were accordingly submitted to Mr. Dax,
who had certified as to the amount due. That that
was communicated to the board by letter, and no answer
made, whereupon they commenced an action and re-
covered judgment, and issued the scire facia' without
any collusion with the directors, and for no other pur-
pose than that of being paid, acid that they were willing
to submit the bills to taxation if the court should so di-
rect. It was contended for the plaintiffs that no reason-
able person could avoid corning to the cenclusion that
the real object was to stop the plaintiffs in their suit,
and not the legitimate one of getting paid. It was
an abuse of the right given them by the act of Par.
liameat, and came within the case decided by Lord St.
Leonards (Taylor v. Hughes, 2 Jones and Latouche,
49), in which that learned judge had restrained a pro-
ceeding of a similar nature. Other objection, made
were, that the solicitors being themselves shareholders,
it was by no means clear that they could sue the com-
pany. But supposing they could, it was contended that
they could not enforce the judgment against another
shareholder ; for if one shareholder could thus enforce a
claim against another shareholder, as soon as that share-
holder paid the claim ho immediately became a creditor
of the company in the amount, and could recover against
the company, and then proceed by scire facial against
the shareholder who had first sued him. That would be
a sort of see-saw proceeding which the court would never
allow. And if it was objected that if that were not to be
allowed the creditor would have to:wait till the contribu-
tions due from each shareholder was ascertained, which
would in effect amount to winding up the company, the
answer was, that if the company was insolvent, and
tAp thereneyo fund,tt Another
henkerraervoleioabi
jngrneottbeen
funds
theeoaao
swmouaoopnrinuas,
et r
itf wwhaischth
wounde directors
u p
the
better.could
f
unsuccessful,
ftuh application p
rt
ioa
tiParlia-
menton
of
fto pay the costs of such ap•
plications would be a breach of trust ; and these solici-
tors, who were shareholders, were therefore parties to
the breach of trust, and could not recover against the
company.
The case was adjourned at the rising of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JAN. 25.
CROFT Y. LUMLEY (IN RR LORD WARD).--RIGIITS OF
BOXIIOLDERS IN MIIR MAJESTY'S THRATRJ.
This was an action of ejectment against the defendant
as the lessee of Her Majesty's Theatre. A few days
ago an application was made by Sir Fitzroy Kelly for
a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why Lord
Ward, who held two boxes in the theatre under a lease,
should not be let in to defend the action.
Mr. Wiles new showed cause against the rule, con-
tending that Lord Ward had no title to the boxes, but
only the use of them under certain provisions.
Lord Campbell said the court was of opinion that Lord
Ward had made out a prima facie case which entitled
him to their consideration, but still it would be very
hard on the plaintiff if all who were in the same
position as his lordship should be admitted as defendants.
Such a course would lead to endless litigation, and would
entail ruinous costs. The court felt inclined to make
the rule absolute, if some arrangement could be made to
obviate the difficulty.
Sir F. Kelly having expressed an opinion that an ar•
rangement could be come to between the parties,
Lord Campbell—. Then, in that case, the rule would
be made absolute. Rule accordingly,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Jsn. 25.

SOUTHWARK,—Mr. Samuel Rosser Idly, printer,
of Lambeth-hill, Samuel Kelly and Arthur Kelly, his
eons, Thomas Bennett, and Isaac Morgan were sum-
moned before Mr. Comb*, for forcibly entering the
dwelling-house of the Reverend Robert Gibson, at 2D,
Gravel-lane (a chandler's shop), and committing assaults
on Maria Mary Kelly, the wife of the former defendant,
and at the same time taking away from her her female
child, between four and fire years of age.
Mr. 13inns appeared for the female, aid Mr. Robin-
son was instructed by Mr. Gwynne for the defendants.
Mr. Robinson observed that there was a very artful
manoeuvre practised by the complainant in this case to
charge father, eons, and all who were actually present
at the time the alleged offences were committed. By
doing so they were unable to be called as witnesses for
each other, and ties they laid at the raercy of anything
Mrs. Kelly might think proper to swear. She was a
woman of very improper character, living in adultery
with Parson Gibson.
Mr. Combe said that it would not matter at the ses-
sions, as all of theta could be tried separately.
treated
be bar.
husband, She
Mr. 13inns then said that he attended for a persecuted
female, who had been most grossly assaulted by the ie-
fe u dant s aty tbherhthade been fodrefaenldoanngtf
aernidod
sibl le-
consequently thought herself bettorin justly sufftedered forin
with a kind man who had so -
be
rg.
At liv
herg.
At the May sessions for the county of Surrey they ma-
nceuvred to get a bill against hint (the Rev. Robert Gib-
son), and he was sentenced to three mouths for an as-
sault on her husband, although Mr. Kelly and the pre-
sent defendants were the aggressors. The complainant
kept his home during his incarceration, and had since
then resided happily with him. She was mot the first
female that had lived with another man.
Mr. Cerebe—She has a husband and family.
Iqr, Biwa knew that, but Ala had been ill-treated