The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY—Nov. 25.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)

IN RE THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION

COMPANY.

Mr. R. Palmer moved in this case that Mr. Aaron
Asher Goldsmid be struck off the list of contributories.
At the beginning of 1836 a prospectuS was issued of a
company to be called the British and American Steam
Navigation Company, with a capital of 500,0001., and
it stated that a charter was to be applied for for limiting
the responsibility of the shareholders. Mr. Goldsmid
applied for shares, and received a letter of allotment,
stating that ten shares had been allotted to him, and
requiring him to pay a deposit of Si. per share. Ac-
cordingly, on the 19th of same the month, he paid 501.
into the bankers of the company. Nothing more was
done by the company until the 21st October, 1836,
when a meeting was held, at which it was determined to
reconstruct the company, uniting with the St. George's
Steam Packet Company, which had been formed at
Liverpool, and increasing the capital to a million ; and
at the meeting a deed forming the company was pro-
duced and signed by a number of the subscribers pre-
sent. Mr. Goldsmid was present at the meeting, but it
did not appear that he took any part either by protesting
or agreeing to the resolutions, which, according to the
minutes, were unanimously passed. He did not, however,
sign the deed, nor did he pay any further calls, or
have anything further to do with the company, till the
25th of April, 1852, when he was summoned before the
Master to show cause why he should not contribute to
the calls made to discharge the liabilities of the com-
pany, which had come under the operations of the
Winding-up Act. It also appeared that on the 30th
June, 1848, the directors of the company had carried
the 501. paid by Mr. Goldsmid to the account of profit,
and they had never treated him as a shareholder in the
company. Under these circumstances the learned coun-
sel contended that Mr. Goldsmid was not a shareholder
of the company, and was not liable to contribute.
The Master of the Rolls held that there was nothing
in this case to show that Mr. Goldsmid had become a
shareholder in the United Company ; and if in 1849 this
company had been as prosperous as it had been unfor-
tunate, and Mr. Goldsmid had filed his bill in this court
to compel an account, and that the company should pay
him dividends in respect of these shares, his bill would
have been dismissed. The result was, that in his opinion
the Master was mistaken in this respect, and that Mr.
Goldsmid must be struck off the list of contributories,
but he should not give any costs.

QUEEN'S BENCH—Nov. 25.

THE QUEEN V. MULCOCK.--CRIMINAL INFORMATION,

A rule having been obtained in this case, calling upon
the defendant to show cause why a criminal information
should not be exhibited against him for printing and
publishing a certain scandalous libel, Mr. Chambers,
Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Willes), now showed cause
accordingly. The learned counsel stated that Mr. Mul-
cock was overseer and churchwarden of the parish of St.
Mary, Newington ; and that the placard, in which the al-
leged libel was said to be included, was printed and pub-
lished before a vestry meeting of that parish. The attack
complained of was of a double nature ; firstly, upon the
legal profession generally ; and, secondly, upon Mr. Ged-
die individually. The placard was an address to the
parishioners of St. Mary, Newington, calling upon
them to beware of " cormorant lawyers " gene-
rally, and to " rise up and take " certain funds
applicable to charitable purposes, " out of the
clutches of those who rob the poor," by which it
was asserted Mr. Geddie individually was pointed at.
The Court upon this stopped Mr. Chambers, and
called on Mr. Collier (who, with Mr. Hawkins, appeared
for Mr. Geddie) to know how he proposed to get over
this legal difficulty.
Mr. Collier said the affidavit was quite new to him,
and he was consequently unprepared to attempt to clis-
prove'it. He urged, however, that Mr. Geddie, by his
amendment, was not taking the sense of the parish upon
the libel.

Lord Campbell—No, but he defended himself from
what he called a calumnious charge. Suppose he had
addressed a letter to a newspaper, vindicating his Cha-
racter, could he then have come to this court ?
Mr. Collier—Possibly not.
Lord Campbell—Then, if he addresses a meeting, and
properly defends himself, there is no material difference
between that and writing to a newspaper.
Mr. Collier urged that if his client had written to a
newspaper he would have addressed himself specifically
to answering the charges in the placard. In all that
appeared in the affidavits to the contrary, Mr. Geddie
might have alluded to the placard, merely stating that
on account of its calumnious character he should apply
to the Court of Queen's Bench for protection.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that the rule should be
discharged. If the prosecutor had merely incidentally
referred to this placard his lordship would have thought
differently, but the fair construction of the affidavits was
calculated to show that he vindicated his conduct and
retaliated upon the defendant.
The learned Judges concurred. Rule discharged with-
out costs.

CONSISTORY COURT.—Nov. 25.

STORY V. STORY.

In this case the defendant, Wm. Story had been de-
creed to take home his wife and treat her with conjugal
affection. The court had further fixed three o'clock on
Saturday last, and the office of Mr. Cricket, the proctor
for Mrs. Story, as the time and place at which Mr.
Story should receive and take home his wife.
Mr. Story now tendered an affidavit signed by two per-
sons to prove that he had been obstructed in obeying'
the order of the court by Mr. Cricket.
Dr. Lushington—Do you mean to say that you have
been ready and willing to take home your wife, and that
you have been prevented from doing so ?
Mr. Story—l do. I have been ready and willing to
take her home ever since the 30th of April, but I have
more than once been obstructed by Mr. Cricket.
Dr. Lushington consented to receive the affidavit. It
appeared that Mr. Story, being unable to attend at Mr.
Cricket's, had sent the clerk of his attorney and another
person to conduct Mrs. Storey home, but she had been
denied to them.

Mrs. Story, who was in court, stated, in answer to
Dr. Lushington, that she had declined to go with the
two men, but that she had gone to the place described
as her husband's home, and had lived there ever since,
her wants having been supplied by persons whom she
supposed to be her husband's agents.
Dr. Lushington—Very well, then, I can do no more,
but I shall not dismiss either of the parties. I shall
keep the case open until I am able to determine what
ought to be done to meet the ends of justice.
Mr. Story—l hope, sir, that you will do me some
justice. I have given notice of a motion to the registrar
to fix a day on which I may be heard as to a complaint
I have to make against the officers of the court.
Dr. Lushingtan—Then you must file affidavits, in
order that there may be some preliminary evidence to
justify your charge ; and if your charge should turn out
to be false, you will have to take the consequences.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Nov. 25.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RE WASS.

The bankrupt, C. W. Wass, was a picture dealer, in
New Bond-street. This was an adjourned last examina-
tion meeting. The accounts, which are extremely volu-
minous, have been filed.
The bankrupt was examined at some length as to the
state of his affairs at the beginning of April, when the
first notice in bankruptcy was served on him; It, ap-
peared an execution had been put into his premises at
the suit of his father's trustees • and this execution had
been satisfied by mortgaging a lease. Shortly after the
messenger in bankruptcy went in ; but in the interval
the bankrupt had sent away all the pictures not his own
which were in his possession ; and with respect to one
of these, "The Spaniel and Frogs," by Landseer, valued
at 240 guineas, the question was raised whether he had
any property in it, but this the bankrupt denied.
His Honour said it was quite clear that Mr. Hooper
was entitled to take away his picture, and if the bank-
rupt had attempted to prevent him, he would have been
acting very improperly. When the execution was satis-
fied by the mortgage of a lease, it was clear that he had
a reasonable expectation of getting through his diffi-
culties ; and that being so, he was perfectly justified in
attempting to get rid of the execution. The penal sec-
tion of the act did not apply, because it was quite clear
that he was under pressure from the trustees. He
would, therefore, pass his last examination, and the pro-
tection would be continued.