The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—March 19.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)

THE NATIONAL BANK OF DEPOSIT.

This case came again before the court upon the
question whether the Marquis of Abercorn was a
director and contributory of the company.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. H. Fox Bristowe appeared for
Lord Abereorn, and Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Roxburgh
for the official manager.
At the conclusion of Mre Bristowe's argument
his Honour delivered judgment, of which we give
an outline,, and which should be taken in connexion
with our report of the proceedings on Monday last.
His Honour thought Lord Abercorti must be con-
sidered a contributory in respect of the £lO5 in-
vestment stock upon which he had reeeived the
dividends. It was not now open to his lordship to
contend that he was not both a director and trustee
for some period which was to be ascertained. Mr.
Wells had so stated, and his lordship's letters (pre-
viously reported) clearly imply that he was a direc-
tor during a certain time. What, then, is the result ?
On his behalf it was urged that he never was a bona
fide holder of stock, and that there was nothing in-
cidental in the office to fix him frith liability. Now,
when Mr. Wells asked his lordship to become a
director, he employed his solicitor to make inquiries,
and the issue appearing catisfactory, a letter was
read at the board by Mr. Wells in October, 1853,
asking that Lord Abercorn be made a director, and
which was complied with on October 27th of that
year; £6OO of the capital stock of the society was
then allotted to him. The fact of this allotment
was never communicated to his lordship, a circum-
stance declared by Mr. Rolt to amount to fraud,
but his Honour could not accede to that notion, as
what was then done was in accordance with the
usual practice of the directors, who did not ask pay-
ment of money from a new director, but opened a
credit for the amount of stock placed in his
name as director. His Honour was of
opinion that when Lord Abercorn autho-
rised Mr. Wells to propose him as a direc-
tor, he authorised the directors to do every
act necessary to qualify him as one of their body.
He could not subsequently say they were not so
authorised. Inquiries were made, and the knowledge
that some instrument regulated the company must
be assumed. A certain amount of stock, viz., £lOO,
was requisite to qualify, and the directors were
authorised to transfer that amount as his lordship's
qualification. To that extent they had authority,
but they had none to transfer more than was requi-
site to qualify, and to that extent only did his
Honour consider Lord Abercorn bound as a director.
Further, when his lordship ceased to be a director
it was the duty of the board to transfer out of his
name the amount which they had previously been
authorised to place in it. It must, therefore, be
considered that when his lordship removed his name
they transferred the stock as he would have done
had he known its position. Then as to the £lO5
for directors' fees, which had been drawn in his
lordship's favour from the funds of the society, and
placed in his name in the same amount of invest-
ment stock. This was done without Lord Abercorn's
knowledge, the cheque was drawn in one year and
not dealt with till another had expired. Dividends,
however, upon this stock had been paid to his lord-
ship's bankers, and this circumstance coming to his
notice, hid led to inquiries through his solicitor,
which ended in no positive information. But pay-
ment to the bankers—payment was made even after
the inquiries—was payment to his lordship, and
therefore in respect of this £lO5 his Honour thought
Lord Abercorn must be declared a contributory.
What position he would occupy as such contribu-
tory in relation to the other contributories would
be determined when contribution was called for. It
would be an insulated position. His Honour then
noticed the argument on the 45th clause of the
company's act, which he said had been most
ably urged by Mr. Rolt and Mr. Bristowe, and
added that it was the duty of every person becom-
ing, or before becoming, a director of a concern, to
ascertain by what rules it was regulated. He
was put upon • inquiry, and if he does not pur-
sue it the consequences fall on himself. The posi-
tion taken up by gentlemen in these matters was
not to be regarded as nominal when it had been
taken as meaning something by those relying on it.
From October, 1853, to 31st December, 1854, his
lordship will be held a director to the extent of
£lOO stock, with what result his Honour could not
then say, while he must be declared a contributory
as to £lO5.

COURT OF DIVORCE, MARCH 19.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WATTS V. WATTS.
This was the petition of Mrs, Emma Julia Watts,
for a dissolution of her marriage, on the ground of
her husband, Mr. Henry Watts' cruelty and adul-
tery.
The marriage took place in 1849, Mrs. Watts
being at that time a Miss Todd, the daughter of a
solicitor, at Brompton. She had as her fortune a
house worth £l,OOO, which was settled on her. Her
husband was of no occupation, but he had some
small means. The parties lived with Mr. Todd till
1860, when the cohabitation ceased. There were
three children of the marriage. From the first the
respondent's conduct was described as having been
irregular and intemperate ; and it had latterly
grown very bad. He habitually used very gross
language to his wife, and some acts of personal
violence were deposed to by her and her father.
He had also compelled her to raise £lOO on her
house, by threats of turning her out of doors if she
would not consent to do what he wished her.
The adultery complained of was committed with
a woman passing as Mrs. Henry, Mrs. Howard,
and other names, by whom it was stated that he had
had a child.
Dr. Phitore, Q.C., Dr. Sp
appeared for the inks, and Mr. Shaw
an
cetitioner. The respondent did not
appear. adultery, but not that
The jury found the issue of
of cruelty for the wife.
Sir C. Cresswell thereupon decreed 5 sentence of
judicial separation.
HALL V. HALL AND WILLIAMS.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Inderwick were coun-
sel for the petitioner; Dr. S pinks for the respon-
dent. The co-respondent did not appear.
In 1856, Mr. Hall, who was described as a re-
spectable chemist, in Wigmore-street, made the
acquaintance of the respondent, then a widow named
Payne, and he subsequently took her into keeping.
In September 1857, he was induced to marry her.
At first she behaved very well, but she afterwards
formed the acquaintance of the co-respondent, who
was the friend of a Mr. Payne lodging in the same
house, and no relation of hers.
Emma Jenkins, the servant of the petitioner, said
her mistress had told her on the Tnursday before
the great volunteer review in Hyde-park that
Williams would send her tickets, and also come to
see her on the following Sunday. He accordingly
came at between seven and eight in the evening.
They saw him in the street, and the respondent
said to witness, " There's Williams standing in the
street. He is afraid to come in. Run and tell him
that Mr. Hall is out." Witness did so, and
Williams came in. The respondents went into the
drawing-room, and then into Mr. Payne's roam.
Mr. Payne came in, and they proceeded to the
apartment of Mr. Zinc, another lodger. They had
coffee together there, but Mr. Zinc also returned
home, and on hearing him arrive they rushed into
a room up stairs. Mrs. Hall then came down stairs
to witness, and told her to let Mr. Williams out
while she occupied Mr. Payne's attention. Witness
brought Williams down to the kitchen, and fetched
Mrs. Hall. She said that Mr. Payne had kissed
her, that Williams was very angry about it, and
that she had told him he might kiss Payne's kisses
off if he liked. A few days after this Mr. Hall had
a friend with him, and went out for the evening.
Mrs. Hall sent for Williams, and he came at about
half-past eight. He went into the kitchen to the
respondent, and witness left them together, for
Mrs. Hall said she might go up stairs if she liked.
In an hour or an hour and a half afterwards witness
returned, and when she was half way down stairs she
saw in a looking-glass the reflection of the respon-
dents in an improper position. Some time after this
she
g-.7e witness half a crown, which she said a
gentleman 1: d sent her. She said that the gentle-
manll had taken hel" to an hotel, and had wanted
her to go to bed with -him) but that she had re-
fused. She stated that she had stayed with him
from five till half-past seven, and :hat he had given
her half a sovereign. Mrs. Hall afters:ards went to
Ramsgate ; but before then she had give witness
notice to leave, on account of some words sh..' had
had with her.
Cross-examined—Left on the 17th of November,
in consequence of Mrs. Hall's dismissal of her. Mrs.
Hall also left on that day. On the following Mon-
day witness returned to Mr. Hall's, and lived there
till the following May. Had since lived at a dress-
maker's named Jenkins—not a relation of witness.
The Sunday before Mrs. Hall went to Ramsgate
Mr. Hall said he would have a divorce. Was now
living at Mr. Hall's, nursing the child of Mrs. Ed-
wards, the sister of Mr. Hall. Had never had any
one to visit witness there. Knew Mr. Andros; he
visited Mr. Payne. He had been criminally inti-
mate with witness; but Mr. Hall never had. Would
swear that. Was now 20 years of age.
Airs. Edwards said that she was telegraphed for
by her brother on the 17th of November, and was
present at an interview between him and his wife.
She went down on her knees and said she would
confess all if he would forgive her. He replied
that nothing should induce him to look over her
fault, and that he would get rid of her. She admit-
ted that she had been with Col. Elkinhurst, and
that she had met another gentleman by appointment