The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-08 00:00:00

HIBBLEWHITE V. 3,I`hIORINE.

This action was brought to recover the difference in
the price of fifty shares in the Brighton Railway Com-
pany, which occurred between the time of contract for a
sale, and the time of selling. The action was tried before
Mr. Baron Gurney, at the sittings in Westminster, after
last term, when a verdict passed for the plaintiff.
Damages 2551.
Mr. ALEXANDER now moved for a rule to show cause
why that verdict should not be set, aside, and a new
trial had. The plaintiff contracted on the 10th Sep-
tember, 1838, to sell to the defendant fifty Brighton
shares, to be delivered on the following Ist of March
at par, and to make to him a legal transfer of them.
The plaintiff averred that he was owner of
the fifty shares at the time in question ; that
he offered them to the defendant on the Ist of
March, and could and would then have made
a legal transfer of them ; all of which allegations were
put in issue. The evidence at the trial was, that a
clerk from the plaintiff had on the Ist March gone to
the defendant and offered him certain papers signed in
the name of Pritchard, Purporting to be Brighton
Shares, which were then at a discount of 225. 6d.,
which were refused. It further appeared that the
plaintiff, in November or December, had made some
agreement with Pritchard for 100 shares, and no doubt
that gentleman could furnish them ; but by the Brigh-
ton Act, the Ist Vic., cap. 119, certain forms must
be gone through, before a regular and legal trans-
fer could take place. Such forms had not been
gone through, for, on application at the Com-
pany's offices, and an inspection of their books
after the Ist of March, the shares stood there in
the name of Pritchard, and none appeared in that of
the plaintiff—the papers shown and signed Pritchard
were not filled up with the numbers or name of pur-
chaser, but were mere forms in blank. He contended
therefore that the plaintiff on the Ist of March was
not in a situation to make a legal transfer of the shares.
Rule granted.

(Sittings in Banco.)
IMPORTANT TO RAILWAY PROPRIETORS—THE BIR
MINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND THAMES JUNCTION RAIL
WAY COMPANY V. HOLFORD.
Mr. PLATT said this was an action tried before
Chief Justice Tyndal at the last assizes for the county
of Essex, in which there was a verdict for the plain-
tiffs for 4601. 18s. 6d., being 4501. for the debt, and
101. 18s. 6d. for damages and detention. He was in-
structed to apply for a rule to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, or a
new trial had, by leave of the Learned Judge. The
action was brought by the proposed Railway Company
against the defendant, to recover the amount of three
calls, namely, the 6th, 7th, and Bth instalments upon
fifty shares in the undertaking, of which he was a pro.
prietor. The declaration was in the usual form
prescribed by the Act of Parliament. The defen-
dant pleaded that he was not indebted. Se.oondly,
that the calls had been made in fraud and misrepre-
sentation. Thirdly, that at the meetings when these
calls were made there were not " five Directors duly
qualified" present, as required by the Act ; and there
was a fourth plea that the calls were not made to de-
fray the expenses of the undertaking for which the Act
had been obtained, but to defray the expenses of another
undertaking. The Act was the 6th William IV., chap.
79, and the shares were subscribed for defraying the
Parliamentary expenses of the Act, and for making
a line of railway from the proposed junction
'of the London and Birmingham and Great Western
Railways at Holsden-green to the basin of the Kensing-
ton Canal, at Kensington. Now it appeared at the trial,
from the evidence of the clerk of the plaintiffs, that
some of the Directors who had attended and voted at
these meetings had not paid up their shares, and, there-
fore were not duly qualified. PARKINS V. WESTLAKE.
Lord DENMAN—Did it appear that there were not This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a tailor,
five present duly qualified ? residing in Cheapside, against the defendant, an attor-
Mr. PLATT—I am not able to say that ; but sup- ney, residing at Barking.
pose 15 were present, and that 10 were disqualified, and Mr. Conquest appeared as attorney for the plaintiff,
voted for these calls, they would carry the proposition and Mr. Beart as attorney for the defendant.
against the qualified minority. Mr. CONQUEST said this was an action brought to
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—But your plea is that there recover a balance of 101. Bs., due from the de-
were not five (the number required by the Act) duly fendant to the plaintiff for clothing, to which the de-
qualified present. fendant pleaded that he had already paid the amount
Mr. PLATT said the replication was, that five Di- that was demanded by the plaintiff, and thereupon issuerectors duly qualified had not voted for making these was joined.
calls. It appeared, further, that the Chairman, who Stephen
.Cnandler, the plaintiff's foreman, proved
was a very important person in the management of the that the defendant gave orders for clothes, which had
affairs of the Company, was not duly qualified. Another been executed.
objection was that the Directors had taken it into their Walter Rutherford is clerk to the plaintiff's attorney.
heads to extend their line, which was originally 2i He served the defendant with the copy of a writ on
miles long, by two miles further, so as to reach the the 19th July last ; the defendant said he was sur-
Thames, conceiving that would be advantageous to the prised at being served, because he had seen the plain-
Company, and a sum of 1,0001. had been expnded in tiff the day before
reTrt.ting having time for the pa)
dAt, and that h..! would write to the plain-
r!nocavouriog ul.:Aa:n an amended
;i: ioterrIN1111: u!'': 1 Lii. ,ut:j,_ct, and hod no doubt hot Chat the matteri
penses of that application to Parliament wereinvolved would be arranged.

SHELDON V. M`MORINE.
The question of facts in this case were the same as
above, and a rule was granted.

SECONDARIES COURT.
(THIS DAY.)