The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-16 00:00:00

CULLINGWoRTH V. LLOYD.

Mr. Sutton Sharpe, and Mr. Mylne, who appeared
with Mr. Richards for the defendants, were heard this
morning in support of their case. Upon the question
of the legality of the transaction, as regarded the agree-
ment between the Messrs. Lloyd and the plaintiff, a
case of " Greenwood v. Ledbitter," 12th Price, 183,
was quoted, in which it was decided that a creditor who
had agreed with his debtor by parole, to take part of a
debt as a composition for his whole demand, and had
actually received money from the debtor in part pay-
ment of the composition, was not thereby bound, but
might still proceed for his whole demand, unless it could
be shown he had, by entertaining an agreement and
taking a composition, induced some other creditor
also to compound with the debtor, so that a
subsequent proceeding for the whole amount of his
debt might be considered a fraud on such debt. The
Learned Counsel contended that although Messrs.
Lloyds had received 6001. in part payment of their
debt, yet they had stipulated that that payment was to
be without any prejudice whatever to their realising
their security, and that the defendants had expressly re-
fused to sign the deed of composition, which refusal was
a notice to all the other creditors that they did not
agree to the terms of the instrument, and they had not
attended any general meeting of the creditors. There-
fore there had been no moral or legal fraud committed
on the part of Messrs. Lloyd. Upon the question of
value, they submitted that the conduct of the plaintiff
himself, in not interfering or filing his bill till 1835, fully
proved that he himself must have thought the property
was sold for its full value in 1832.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(THIS I)AY.)

THE REGISTRATION ACT.-THE QUEEN V. PRICE.

This was an indictment against the defendant, Ben-
jamin Price, of High-street, Birmingham, for wilfully
and contemptuously disobeying the provisions of the
Act 6th and 7th Will. IV., chap. 86, by refusing to
furnish George Pynner, the registrar of the district of
St. Peter's, in which ho (the defendant) resided, with
the date and other particulars of the birth of his child.
There was a verdict for the Crown, subject to the
opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The questions
for the Court were—first, whether there was sufficient
evidence that George Pynner was the registrar of the
district, legally appointed under the provisions of the
Act ? and, second, whether the indictment was sus-
tainable ?
The ATTORIqEY-GENERAL, on behalf of the Crown,
said the question was one of very great importance, and
he was gratified that it had come before their Lordships
to be solemnly decided before that high tribunal. The
first question was, whether the Act required that in-
formation should be given, or left it optional with the
party. Now ha contended that the Act was man-
datory and not permissive, and that a refusal to give
the information rendered a party liable to an indictment.
It was contended that the words " every birth which has
not'been already registered," left it optional with the
party to register only with the parish clergyman, but if
that were the case it would utterly defeat the objects of
the Act of Parliament. The register of the parish
clergyman was not a register of births and deaths, but
of baptisms and burials. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded at some length to go through the provisions
of the various sections of the Act, pointing out in what
manner they applied to the present case. He then cited
several authorities to show what the penal consequences
were of contemptuously refusing to obey the provisions
of au Act of Parliament, and concluded by submitting
that the judgment of the Court must be for the Crown.

Sir F.POILOCK, on the other side, said he would con-
tend that the Act was intended to apply merely to those
who were desirous of availing themselves of its provi-
sions ; secondly, that the Act was not mandatory ;
thirdly, that the indictment did not support such a cri-
minal charge as could have been mule under the Act of
Parliament ; and fourthly, that the indictment did not
set forth any offence which was a crime under the Act of
Parliament. The Act merely recited that it was expe.
client to provide the means of procuring a❑ accurate
register of births, deaths, and marriages, and was in-
tended to carry out more largely for other persons the
means which the existing statutes on the subject did not
afford. That appeared to him a correct statement of the
preamble of the Registration Act, which referred to the
.52d Geo. 111., chap. 146, and although that Act origi-
nally contained a penalty of transportation—
Lord DENMAN—That Act has been very often re-
ferred to. One half the penalty was to go to the in-
former and the other to the offender.—(A laugh.)
Sir F. PoLLocx said that and every other penalty
had been removed from the original Act, of which the
present could merely be considered an amendment.
The Learned Gentleman was proceeding with his
argument, when
Lord DENMAN said the Court was obliged to rise
to meet the other Judges in the Exchequer Chamber,
but would hear the remainder of the Learned Gen-
tleman's arguments on Monday.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS COMPANY V. RICHARDS.

Mr. WATSON moved, on the part of the defendant,
that the trial of this cause be postponed till the sit-
tings of the Hilary Term, on account of the absence
of a material witness. The action was one for calls
brought by the Company against a shareholder. The
case had been before Mr. Justice Maule, at Chambers,
and he thought it was similar to an undefended bill of
exchange case, where the defendant's object was only
delay. But to show that the application was bona fide
the defendant was willing to pay into Court the sum
sued for. The defendant's affidavit was, that he had
been induced to join the scheme by misrepresentations,
and that Parliament had been induced to pass the Act
by such misrepresentations.
Mr. Justice MAULE—They say the Act is void
perhaps.
Mr. WATSON—NO, my Lords ; for I should say
that if Parliament has been deceived, Parliament must
remedy their error.
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—What is the plea?

Mr. WATSON—Never indebted, my Lord. It is the
general form of declaration. The Aet provides that in
an action for calls, it shall be sufficient for the party to
be declared a shareholder, and indebted in so many calls ;
and that a certain book, which is kept to register the
shareholder's names, shall be prima facie evidence that
each person so registered is a shareholder. Important
questions, therefore, might arise. He then went on to
state that the late solicitor of the Company was the
material witness, he having said that he thought no calls
should be enforced, and that he was now absent from
the country.
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—Was he an original
subscriber ?

Mr. WATSON—Yes, my Lord ; but he says he was
deceived by misrepresentations—that there is not a bona
fide intention to complete the project.
Mr. Justice MAttLE—He does not even declare his
belief, that it is not the intention of the Company to
carry the plan into operation ; but he says it is not a
bona fide intention,
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—If not bona fide, why
did he join it ?
Mr. WATSON—He was deceived by misrepresenta-
tions, my Lord.
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—He was told, I sup-
pose, that it would be a very profitable thing.
Mr. WATSON—He says he believes the Company is
merely for the personal benefit of individuals.
Lord Chief Justice TvrinAL—Why, half the Com-
panies formed were for the personal benefit of indivi-
duals.

Mr. Justice MAULE—He does not deny that it is
meant to build these docks.
Mr. WATSON—He believes it is merely intended to
put shares in the market, and profit by their risings and
fallings.
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—WeII, he must look
sharper, next time, before he joins a speculation.
Mr. W
ATSON—I will give him better advice still—
never to join one at all.—(Laughter.)
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—Ah, I think you're
right. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. WATSON—Defendant says that this witness (the
Solicitor) had declared that calls ought not to be en-
forced ; and that it would be unsafe to go to trial with-
out the evidence which he could furnish ; further, that
he would not return before Hilary Term.
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—What is the amount
of the calls ?
Mr. WATSON-21. 10s. on 40 shares-100..
Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL—I think you had better
pay that, and try the question on the next call. We
cannot see our way clearly enough to grant your ap-
plication.
The Court rose at Twelve o'Clock._