The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-26 00:00:00

THURSDAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Feb. 25.
(Before Sir J. PARKER.)
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES'
WINDING-UP ACTS, 1848 AND 1849, AND OF THE
EASTERN C )UNTIES AND SOUTH-END RAILWAY COM-
PANY, EX PARTE CAUSToN,
Mr. HALINS ,ind Mr. ROXBURGH moved to diicharge
an order of the Master, by whleh the name of Mr. Cans-
ton had been placed on the list of contributories of the
above comotny. It appeared from the statement of the
Learned Counsel that Mr. Causton had been secretary to
the above company, which was one of the various rail-
way projects which failed in the year 1848 ; that the
company was to consist of 22,000 shares, all of which
were allotted; and that Mr. Canston had applied for 50
shares, but that he had not had any allotted to him, on
account of their having been all previously allotted to
other persons. Mr. Causton had, however, signed the
subscription contract, in common with about 14 or 15
allottees of shares, to whom the deposits which they
paid in respect of their shares (about 500 in number)
had been returned by the directors. The official ma-
nager claimed to have Mr. Causton's name placed on the
list of contributories on the ground of his having exe-
cuted the subscription contract, but it was contended,
on Mr. Causton's behalf, that he had executed the deed
only because he had been desired to do so by the di-
rectors, and not as a shareholder, and that even if he
had executed it in the latter capacity, he had done so on
the faith of its being executed by all who had under-
taken to do it. It was insisted that the deed was in fact
a nullity, and had been always treated as such by the
directors.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Wordsworth, of the common law
bar, appeared for the official manager, but they were not
called upon to address the Court.
His HONOUR said he thought Mr. Canton was bound
by the deed which he had executed. There was nothing
alleged to induce him to treat it as void on the ground
of fraud. The motion, therefore, must be refused, and
with costs.

U at
R O
T QUEEN'S BENCH. Feb. 25.
Sittings
NisiFPriuo, before Lord CAMPBELL and a
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. KINCAID AND ANOTHER.
Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Parry ap-
peared for the Crown; Sir A. E. Cockburn, Mr. Cham-
bers, Q.C., Mr. Huddlestone, and Mr. Combo, for Kin-
caid; and Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr. Collier, and Mr.
Prentice for the other defendant, Were.
The defendants Charles Henry Kincaid and Nicholas
Were were indicted for conspiring, by means of fraud and
sham sale, to cheat the creditors of a Mrs. Kincaid, and
also for conspiring to hinder the course of justice by
making a false affidavit in Doctors -commons. There
was another set of counts, which charged a conspiracy
to defraud Atohibald Mnwatt, who was entitled to
one-third of the estate of Mrs. Kincaid. The deceased
Mrs. Kincaid was the lessee of a house known as
Simpson'e Chophouse and Coffeehouse in Cornhill.
She died on the 2d of October, 1851, leaving three
children, the defendant C. H. Kincaid, Who had for-
merly been in practice as an attorney; Mary Ann Kin-
caid; living with her at the time of her death; and
another daughter married to Mr. Mewett. The charge
egainst the son was that, ho conspired with the other
defendant, Were. an attorney at Plymouth, to defraud
the creditors of Mrs. Kincaid, and also hie sister. Mrs.
Mowatt, by getting administration of the effects of his
deceased mother, and dieposing of the same to Were at a
much smaller sum than the property was worth. Mrs.
Kincaid was entitled to the lease of the chophouse fern,
unexpired, term of 14 years, and, the takings being stated
to be about 201. a-day. the lease, goodwill, and furniture
were estimated to be worth from 4,000/. to 6,000/. On
Mrs. Kincaid's death, which took place on the 2d of Oc-
tober, 1851, Mrs. Mowatt wrote to the defendant Were.
at Plymouth, to inquire whether he had not made a will
for the late Mrs. Kincaid, and on the 4th of October re-
ceived an answer stating that be had prepared 'inch a
will, and that atter seeing it executed in the presence of
two witnesses he left it in her castody. Search was
tben made for this will, but it was not found; but
another will, in the handwriting of Were, was found in
Miss M. A. Kincaid's dressing-case, which, however, had
no signature. On the mother's death the defendant C.
H. Kincaid came home from Paris to his mother's
house, where his sister M. A. Kincaid was residing,
and required all the keys to be given. up to him,
which was done accordingly. The deceased died very
much in debt, to the extent of several thousand pounds,
and the creditors, it was alleged, were defrauded by the
defendants in the following manner:—Kincaid made an
affidavit at Doctors'-commons that he was the natural
and only child of the deceased, though he had two sisters
living, and one was residing in the house with him at the
time, and thus obtained letters of administration to the
*estate of his mother. This affidavit was made on the
10th of October. The defendant Were and another per-
son, named Dunwick, were the sureties in the adminis-
tration bond. The defendant Kincaid then employed
Messrs. Blake and Poole, who convened the creditors of
Mrs. Kincaid to a meeting on the 20th of Ootober, to
receive a statement of the effects of the deceased. On
that day the creditors met, but, instead of receiving a
statement, they were informed that the property had
been sold to the defendant Were for the sum of 1,8001.,
and that the proceeds had been applied to paying off
7761. due upon a mortgage upon the promises, and one
or two other claims upon the deceased, the principal part
of which was a claim of 638/. alleged to be due to Dun-
wick. It appeared, however, that Dunwick was not
paid. A lease of the property was then granted for one
year to the sister, Miss Kincaid, at a rent of 30s. a day,
and the defendant Kincaid continued in the house and
carried on the business.
Kincaid's defence was, that the false statement in the
affidavit was a mistake made either by the proctor or the
defendant, and that, so far from being guilty of an in-
tention to defraud, the defendant had dono all he could
to protect the interest of his sick sister, who, but for
his assistance, would have been wholly unprovided for.
Witnesses were called who proved that the mortgage
was paid, and that Dunwick had a large claim upon the
deceased as a judgment creditor.
ee• ware's defence was, that he was altogether innocent
of any participation in any fraudulent act of his client, if
such had been committed; and as to the will, he had
simply made a mistake when he said he saw it duly
executed, a mistake which arose from the fact that he
had drawn it up in regular form with the attestation

. ,
1,4 01800.
Witnesses were Called who spoke highly of •the cha-
both the defendants. Among the rest, Lord
Bulteel, the banker of Devenvrt.
e to the high character of Mr. Were, who had been
' ranterspoke
got
of n
and Mr.
'rot man years known as a most respectable attorney.
) Lord CAMPBELL having summed up the evidence,
The jury retired, and, on their return into court, stated
i
IA that though they Could not big regard the sale of the
Property for 1,8001. as most unwarrantable and comet:-
able, yet, us Duuwick had a claim as judgment creditor'
they found both defendants Not guilty.
The Court pat till nearly nine o'clock.

COURT OF, EXCHEQ UER, Feb. 25.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Chief Baron and
Speial Juries.)
wka.cir v. FAWCETT.

Attorney
Mr. . James and Mr. D. Power were counsol for
the plaintiff; the -General gad Mr: Ferrer
sp-
earedp for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an architact of great provincial cele-
brity,. boieg erected the Town-hall at Birmingham and i
the I at Liverpool, besides other important works,
and
was an action iu which he sought to recover 200
guineas as his commission, .at the rate of li per cent., on
the contemplated
„ expenditure of the defendant in the
hth6SisPkta
erection of certain houses on the Craven-hill estate,
Bayswater. 14 aPPeared that the defendant, who is a
eilatvieeof property residing in the neighbourhood of
n
entered into a negotiation with the lessee of
of the estate for the lease of certain building ground,
and during its progress was introduced to the
gCrinebnilly
who stated his terms for the prepare,
superintendence of the erections to be
2 per cent. on the outlay, and 11 for the plans and
preliminary trouble if the plans were not carried out.
tion plaintiff,
o f
plans and
After this the Plaintiff proceeded to prepare the ground-
-1
,Plans and elevation of 20 houses, and the question was,
whether, the negotiation having ultimately been broken
off, the defendant was liable to pay the 11, per cent.
commission on the ground that he had given express in-
structions to the plaintiff te - proceed, or- whether the
plaintiff was to be eonaidered to have embarked • rather
precipitately in his work, so as to disentitle him from
recovering its value from the defendant: The plaintiff
and the defendant were both examined, as well as other
witnesses, and at the conclusion of the reply for the
plaintiff,
The °MEP BARON left it to the jury to decide be-
tween the parties.' In so doing his Lordship took oc-
casion, to remark that the admission of parties -to
the witness-box seemed to him to be the logical and
necessary consequence of the previous alterations in
the law of evidence, and while it might -be admitted
to have been both necessary and proper, it certainly
rendered the duty of a juryman more difficult, for the
Parties were generally' diametrically opposed to each
other in their recollection and construction of facts. The
change also necessarily led to increased litigation, , for
where new witnesses and means of proof were intro-
duced, new actions must spring up, and cases were
brought-into court which but for the new law would
. never, have been thought of. Without saying that this
vial such a case, it was clear that'. the jury had a diffi-
cult task before them when called upon to decide :be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant, and he would add,
that as the result of his experience of the working of
this Act, he
had come to the opinion that it would be
highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary,-that a fur-
ther change in the law should be made by extending the
operation of the Statute of Frauds, now limited to con
tracts to the value of 104, to every species of contract.
so that
transactions into writing, about which there could not
all parties should be compelled to reduce their
aftersvards arise any question. found a
The jury, at the close of the summing tip,
verdict for the defendant. . , .
YINENTe V. ZIILIIETA..
M. EisrstoW
Sir Fitzroy Kell Mr. Regains. sod ---
y, Pete
,Ts.•
were counsel for the Mr. Bramwell,defendant.
dorff, and Mr, A plaintiff; fleet for the.
The plaintiff sPland were e"
-4 m is a Spanish merchant over
I 8,0004
thisand wail au acti ht to recover ne.ar y ,
on broug
certain oteognments ot
as the balance due to him on cert- eats° 'ft Spanish
copper ore to the defendant, who _ is .noss.
The nee-
merchant, carrn on an extensive bust q
long correspond.
times between hagattics turned on a .
p .
which would not he interest-
- "ding in Cuba,
nee and accounts current, w •
ing to the public,and
ee,
e -
otually s verdict was taken-for
the plaintiff for ,4201. 5.4 7d. •
--_

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 25,
(Betora Mr. Corfirnivliorulr FONDLANQUE.)
DT ,BENNETT.
'The batikrupt, J. Bennia; appikd for, his co:tificAe.
Mr. HUDSON supported the application. Lk tho
bankrupt "ma a mall builder at Woolwich, and bad