The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-16 00:00:00

POOR LAW UNIONS.

Mr. EWART moved for returns from each of the
poor law unions in England, Wales, and Ireland, show-
ing :-1. What kinds of employment, if any, are carried
on in the respective workhouses, or on land attached to
them. 2. The number of adult able-bodied persons,
male and female, who appeared on the books as reci-
pients of 'relief on the Ist day of July, 1852, and
the proportion of them engaged by the directions
of the guardians in handicraft and agricultural industry.
3, The classification of the inmates of each workhouse,
and the number of them engaged in industrial pursuits.
4, Whether all the articles produced are used in the
workhouses, and, if not, how the surplus is disposed of.
—Agreed to.
STAMP DUTIES ON PATENTS BILL.

The Stamp Duties on Patents for Invention Bill was
read a third time and passed.
THE BUDGET—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The house then went into Committee of ways and
means, Mr. Wilson Patten, in the chair.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he found that the other
night there was considerable difficulty in ascertaining
the meaning of the resolution of the Government, and,
on inquiring into the matter, he found that only a por-
tion of the resolution had been read. He, therefore,
thought it would be better to take the whole resolu-
tion.

Mr. W. PATTEN explained that the usual course
was to read the whola resolution, unless an amendment
was proposed, and then only the portion of the resolu-
tion to which it referred was put. There having been
an amendment, he had adopted the latte, course.
Mr. HUME said, on behalf of Mr. W. Williams, he
would withdraw his amendment, and substitute it as an
amendment to the whole resolution of the Govern-
ment.

After a few words from Mr. W. PATTEN,
The CHANCELLORR of the EXCHEQUER said
he was informed on the highest authority that the reso-
lution should be taken paragraph by paragraph. He
only intended to take the opinion of the committee on
the increase and extension of the tax, and the question
as to the amount of the tax would be deferred until
another occasion, when he should take the opportunity
of laying the views of the Government before the com-
mittee. That was a distinct proposition, and he felt
bound in honour not to press for a decision upon it until
after the holidays. He trusted the committee would
agree to divide upon the preamble of the resolution as
soon as possible.
Mr. E. DENISON said he distinctly understood
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated he
would look upon the vote of the committee as conclusive
of the whole propositions of the Government ; and, under
these circumstances, he hoped the Government would
allow the whole resolution to be read. (Hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE thought it was the practice of the
house for the chairman to read through the entire reso-
lution, unless he were interrupted by some hon. member
who desired to move an amendment to any particular
paragraph. The hon. member for Lambeth gave notice
of an amendment to the preamble of the resolution, but
he subsequently withdrew it, and the hon. member for
Manchester (Mr. Bright) then intimated that he wished
to take a negative on these words. Now he would ask
the hon. member if he had any objection to a negative
being taken on the whole proposition ?
Mr. BRIGHT said he was willing to take any course
which the forms of the house would sanction.
Sir J. PAKINGTON observed, that though in point
of fact there was but one resolution, it embraced four
distinct propositions. The preamble stated the principle
of the Government proposition—viz., that the house tax
should hereafter be extended in erea, and increased in
amount. (Hear.) Then there followed three other distinct
propositions—first, that the house tax should be extended
to houses of 10/. ; secondly, that houses of a certain
class should pay s. in the pound ; and, thirdly, that
other houses of a certain other class should pay ls. 6d.
in the pound. These were all propositions on which a
difference of opinion might prevail ; and he therefore
submitted that the most fair course was to consider only
one at a time, and to take the preamble first. (Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said they were in a committee of
ways and means, for the purpose of granting supplies to
her Majesty ; but the preamble
_of the resolution was
. .

not a vote, for it simply asserted that " the following
duties should be hereafter payable—that is to say," and
then it terminated. (Hear, and cheers.) It involved a
general principle ; but a committee of ways and means
was not the place to determine such a question.
(Cheers.)

Mr. ItINDLEY thought if the house had not intended

_ --
to go into the details of the resolution, the proper— time
would have been to do so, at the time when !the hon.
member for Finsbury opposed that the Speaker leave
the chair.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE denied that the preamble of the
resolutions contained the principle of the extension of the
area of the house tax, and of the amount of payment on
it. He contended that the issue originally intended by
the Government, was the doubling of the house tax, and
it was nonsense for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
say that that rested with the house. The issue had, in
fact, been changed to suit the convenience of some par-
ties, but who they were, he knew not.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that so far as he was concerned, he should not consider
any gentleman voting for this resolution, pledged to the
Government proposal with respect to the house tax.
Sir C. WOOD doubted whether it would be possible
in accordance with the forms of the house, to put the
preamble of these resolutions alone. The fact was, that
the resolutions were drawn in a somewhat loose form.
They were in commiitee of ways and means, and their
duty, therefore, was to vote a grant, and not to repeal
an existing tax. If it were in form, he for his own part,
was quite willing to go to a division on the preamble.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the most satisfac-
tory course to be pursued would be to read the whole
resolution.

so The
faraCsthAe NfoennE LoLf O R of h
the
rtes
resolution
IuEXCHEQUERt ion
was
concerned,
he
et
had copied them totident verbis from those of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Halifax. He repeated
that, so far as the Government was concerned, any
gentleman voting for this first resolution was perfectly,
entitled at a future opportunity to oppose the redupli-
cation of the house tax.
Mr. E DENISON said that the declaration of the
right hon. gentleman was in substance that any hon.
gentleman voting a supply of one shilling might
be at liberty to interpret that shilling to mean 6d, 4d, or
10(1, as he liked.
, Mr. K. MACAULAY said he was one of those, who
being willing to divide for an extension of the house tax,
were unwilling to be driven into a vote as to what the amoun
of
min extension should be. Be had not yet made up his
as to the number of pence by which the house tax
should be extended, though he was of opinion that ft
shouldmr. bes.
itextteuntEdit.
the committee was, toTvgshai td
amountt h atthe
ther real
hi
oquestionshoudbefo
what
was impossible for them to
should be extended, and
discuss the principle of the measure
Sir T. ACLAND said, that if he *were called upon to
vote the highest amount of extension, ho should do so

on the understanding that he would be at liberty, at
any future period, to endeavour to lower,it.
Mr. MALINS said his mind was not yet made up as
to the amount to which the house tax should be in-
creased, and -he should, therefore, vote for this resolu-
tion, on the understanding that this question would b.-
discussed afterwards ; and he hoped honourable mem-
bers on that side of the house would follow his example.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that hon. members voting for these resolutions was
simply voting materials for a bill, and it would be per-
fectly open for any hon. gentleman making objections to
the future details of that bill.

Mr. W. PATTEN then proceeded to read the resolu•

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—DEc. 18.

(Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices.)
IN RE THE MONMOUTH AND GLAMORGAN BANKING CON

PANY, EX PARTE CAPE'S EXECUTORS.

This appeal from the Master of the Rolls was brough,

before the full Court, instead of the Lords Justices,-fromits being made to rest on a decision of the Lord Justice
Knight Bruce in Sanderson's case, when sitting as a vice-
chancellor. John Cape held 105 shares in the company,
and by a decision of Master Farrer his executor was held
liable, under the Winding-up Act, to contribute to the
discharge of the debts of the company, and ordered to
pay a call of 601. per share on the 105 shares. The com-
pany was formed in August, 1835, with a capital of
500,0001. in 211. shares. Great losses were incurred,
and in January, 1852, an order was obtained for wind-
ing-up its affairs. Cape had purchased his shares in
1841, and it appeared that some of the debts of the com-
pany proposed to be paid out of the contributing money
had been incurred previously to the date of his transfers.
It was, therefore, contended that his liability ex-
tended only to debts incurred after the transfer- of
the shares, and that if held liable at all it ought to
be with such a qualification as would save his estate
from any contribution except for debts incurred after
he became a shareholder. The Master of the Rolls
held, however, that Master Farrer was right in making
the executor liable for all the debts of the company.
The Lord Chancellor gave judgment. It was quite
clear that the law made no difference between a partner-
ship with two or three persons and a partnership with
one hundred. The same rules applied to both. This
banking company was not, however, a common partner-
ship, because it expressly referred to the act of the 7th
Geo. IV., c. 46, and incorporated it in its deed of settle-
ment. Under that act the public officer of a company
alone could be sued ; under that act the shareholders of
the company were liable 'to all the creditors, and therefore
there was an essential difference between a partnership
of a joint-stock company and that of a common one.
Supposing that there was nothing in the deed of such a
company with regard to liability, his lordship apprehended
that every purchaser of a share in such companies, buy-
ing in the market, took the share in the property just as
it stood at the time of the sale, with all its liabilities.
Now, here there was a capital of 500,000/., in 201.
shares, and if that which was contended for could prevail,
there must be an account taken of the debts and liabilities
of the partnership on the sale of a single share. If
the contention was right, every single purchaser
would have a right to an inquiry whether it was for
past expenditure or future wants that a call on him was
made on account of his share. Could any of these great
concerns be carried on -under such a state of circum-
stances ? Certainly not. And there was nothing in the
deed before the Court, that his lordship could find to
warrant such an assumption. It would be a very strong
case indeed that would induce the Court to hold that a
purchaser of shares did not come into the company as a
sharer of all its liabilities. Look at the Stock Exchange,
where these securities are sold as investments. Did not
every one know that they were so sold according to the
public opinion of their solvency as far as the accounts
were made public ? Here the capital was 500,0001., but
if 400,0001. of that had been spent, the purchaser of a
share at the price of the day must know that he has to
furnish his quota to make good the capital. But in
this case there was a reserved fund, and if the pur-
chaser had a right to a proportion of that fund as a gain,
he had also a proportionate liability to the payment of
debt. The clauses that had been urged as taking the
case out of the general rule were, in his lordshipis
opinion, strongly in favour of it. The 60th clause had
been mainly relied on. It was worded most accurately
in the common form of conveyancing, and could not have
the construction put upon it. No man became a pro-
prietor until be had executed the deed, and after he did
so he became a partner, and was bound by all its cove-
nants. It was not from the time he executed the deed,
but from the commencement of the operation of the deed
itself, that the partnership was to date, an,d from that
date he had all the benefits. If that court was now to
decide otherwise, a blow of a most fatal kind would be
struck at all the dealings in shares of these companies,
which every day were bought and sold and made the
medium of large investments, In conclusion, his lord-
ship said that he had no doubt whatever on the nature
of the contract, or on the responsibility of the executor,
and he thought the appeal must be dismissed with
costs.
The Lords Justices concurred.

The Lord Chancellor added that the deed of transfer
was in accordance with the view the court had taken of
the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC: 15.
BEETS AND OTHERS (EXECUTORS) V. THE LONDON,
BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH-COAST RAILWAY CO.
This was an action, under Lord Campbell's Act, by
the plaintiffs, as executors of Mr. Josiah Groves, a
tailor, at Portsea against the defendants, to recover for
Mr. Groves' family compensation in damages for his
death, which was occasioned by an accident on the de-
fendants' railway, through the negligence of the defen-
dants' servants.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Lush were counsel for
the plaintiffs ; and the Attorney-General and Mr. Bovill
for the defendants.

It appeared that in November, 1851, Mr. Groves,
who was a widower, with a family of four children,
came to London on business, and at the same
time visited a Miss Richards, to whom he was
about to be married, and also Dr. Elliotson, whom
he consulted for a complaint, attended by spitting
of blood, under which he was suffering. On the
evening of the 25th November he left London for Port-
sea by the defendants' railway, and proceeded safely as
far as Arundel, when, on passing over a bridge near that
town, where there is only one line of rails, in conse-
quence of the driver's neglecting a signal, the train ran
into a luggage train, and the carriage in which Mr.
Groves was was overturned and thrown down a bank.
The consequence was that Mr. Groves, who was asleep in
the carriage at the time the accident happened, was se-
verely injured on the right temple and on the right side,
and, having previously lost his eye-sight, died in great
suffering at the end of a fortnight. To prove the serious
state of his health, Miss Richards, to whom he was
about to be married, was called, and she deposed that
he was a fine-looking man, thirty-seven years of age ;
that he had been a widower for two years, and had four
children, whose ages were respectively eleven, eight,
five, and three years. She also produced his portrait in
confirmation of her statement as to his healthy looks,
and after some opposition from the defendants' counsel,
it was handed to the jury for inspection. On cross-ex-
amination, however, she stated that he had suffered
from spitting of blood in the month of June previous
to his death, and another illness after a subsequent
visit to the Great Exhibition' and that in the following
month of October he had had an attack of apoplexy.
His regular medical attendant was Dr. Engledue, of
Portsmouth, but as this gentleman had been called in
by the defendants to attend him after the accident,
he was not examined ; but Dr. Elliotson, whom the
deceased had consulted, deposed that in his opinion
he might have lived for many years, and read a report
to that effect, which he had written to Dr. Engledue
after the deceased had consulted him. Mr. Tuke, a
surgeon at Arundel, and Mr. Garrington, a surgeon
at Portsea, deposed to the state in which they found
him after the accident. The latter, who made a post
mortern, examination, stated that he found the lungs
congested from recent inflammation, inflammation in the
pleura, apoplectic cyst in the brain, an enlarged heart
with a thickened ventricle, a little water in the abdomen,
the ankles slightly swelled and dropsical, and the kidneys
small and affected with cystic disease. This gentleman
also
deposed that he thought inflammation and congestion
were causes of the death, and that most probably
the
they resulted from the accident. Mr. Adams, surgeon
treatise on diseases of the heart, deposed that, in their
and Dr. Billing, author of a
of the deceased neither caused his death nor
were
to
irnei theo
inconsistentn l:otnh de n
wenlargementith Hospital,a
long
of the heart and other ail-
mentssuch a nature as an invalid insurance office would have
required a higher premium for than usual. It was
life, though they were of
further deposed that the profits of his business were
worth 8001. but it
foreman had succeeded him upon paying 8001. for the
giving
stock, and without appeared that the deceased's late
the business. anything for the good-will of

The Lord Chief Justice told the jury they must con-
fine their verdict to such damages as would compensate
the children of the deceased for the pecuniary loss they
had sustained by the ' death of their father, and that
they must further apportion that loss between the
children.

The jury retired, and then returned with a verdict for
the plaintiffs for 2,000/., which the counsel on each side
agreed should be equally divided between the children.
Messrs. Bevan and Goodeve, of Old Jewry, were the
plaintiffs' solicitors ; Messrs. Sutton and Co. for the
Railway Company.
Mr. Sergeant Byles expressed a confident hope that,
in that court, before very long, as cheaply as in the
with his lordship's kind assistance, a trial might be had
County Courts.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Dec. 15.

Wallace Ramey, OLD COURT.
30, law student, who was remanded
from last session
orders for the session, was indicted for forging and uttering
Payment of money, with intent to defraud
Mrs. Wood.

Mr. Parry addressed the Court at great length for the
defence, stating that the prisoner had acted in a perfectly
business-like Way in his transactions with the prosecutor.
Mr. Parry then proceeded to call witnesses for the de-
fence ; after which,
Mr. Cockerell addressed the jury for the prosecution,
imputing perjury to the witnesses for the defence.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation.