The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-14 00:00:00

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE.—May 13.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
DANK. OF DEPOSIT.-IN FIE DAVIES, A_DEPOSITOR, AND

_
IN RE THE MARQUIS OF ABERCORN.
Their lordships delivered their opinions upon
these appeals from decisions of the Master of the
Rolls, placing the names of the respective appellants
upon the list of contributories to the liabilities of
the National Assurance Investment Association,
now in course of being wound up under the
Winding-up Acts.
In support of the appeals, which were argued
some weeks since, Mr. Rolt, Q.C., and Mr. Bris-
towe, appeared for the Marquis of Abercorn; Mr.
Ogle, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Godfrey for Mrs.
Davies ; Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., and Mr. Roxburgh for
the official manager; and Mr. Abel and Mr. Cot-
trell (both of the common law bar) to watch the
proceedings on behalf of other depositors.
Lord Justice Turner, in delivering judgment, re-
ferred to the different clauses of the Winding-up
Acts and the deed of settlement, and said that the
question was whether Mrs. Davies had been pro-
perly held a contributory under the provisions of
those Acts and the deed; and the first consideration
was whether she was a member of the association.
Until 1854 that association had stood on the footing
of the deed of settlement, but since then its affairs
had been regulated by the provisions of an Act of
Parliament which it obtained. It was after the
passing of that act that the association first assumed
the title of a bank of deposit, and it seemed to him
that the society then determined to get money into
their possession from depositors, and to apply to
these investments the provisions of their deed of
settlement. Mrs. Davies was neither the holder of
mutual or investment stock ; she, therefore, did not
come into the association under the provisions of
the deed. And with respect to her signature to I
certain receipts, it was going much too far to say
that on the strength merely of such signatures
she must have intended to become a pro-
prietor. On these grounds, he was of
opinion that Mrs. Davies had not properly
been held a contributory, and that the injunction
granted to restrain her proceedings at law ought to
be dissolved. With respect to the Marquis of Aber-
corn, whose name appeared as a director from the
month of October, 1853, until December, 1854, it
was shown that he neither knew of the loan to him
of £5OO, nor of the purchase of investment stock of
£lOO. He never attended any meetings of the
board of directors, therefore by the deed of settle-
ment was not entitled to receive fees as director. It
was true that subsequently to his consent to become
a director the board had passed a resolution en-
titling all directors whether attending or not, to
fees. But although Lord Abercorn must be con-
sidered to have been a director, and therefore not
liable to contribute to those claims which might be
made upon other directors. Then as to any implied
agreement by the marquis to take the stock requi-
site to his qualification as director, he held that con-
structive notice ought not to be applied to such a
case as this, and that the marquis ought not to have
been held to be a contributory as the holder of such
stock.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce was satisfied that
Mrs. Davies never intended to become a member of
this association. She certainly, neither in the cha-
racter of member, of shareholder, or of partner de-
ceived anybody, or intended to be other than a mere
depositor; the strange documents issued by the as-
sociation did not affect her, and she was therefore
entitled to proceed with her action, and to have all
her costs of the proceedings both here and at the
Rolls. In Lord Abercorn's case there had been
great carelessness on hie part perhaps, but it was
clear that he never had or intended to take any
capital stock, and in the absence of such intention
or agreement he was not a member of the
association so as to render him liable to a contribu-
tory. Whether it might be different with respect
to the £4O standing in the joint names of
his lordship and Mr. Bower he pronounced no
opinion, for that matter was not before the
court. His lordship could not be allowed any costs
in this appeal.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir. R. T. Kindersley.)
HATTERSLEY V. THE ANDOVER AND REDBRIDGE

prietors of the periodical called Twice a Week from
using the name of the London Journal in that I
work. The name is used thus, lwiee a Week,
an Illustrated London Journal. The application
was made on behalf of tho proprietors of the Lon-
don Journal.
The Vice-Chancellor said there did not seem suf-
ficient ground for an ex parte injunction. The
plaintiffs must move on notice.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and

Mellor.)
THE QUEEN V. THE UNITED ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH

COMPANY.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane showed cause
against a rule calling upon the defendants to appear
and receive judgment for a nuisance in erecting
telegraph posts on the highway. The present com-
pany succeeded the original promoters, and they be-
lieved at first that they inherited the latter's powers
with reference to the erecting of posts in the high-
way. The learned counsel said this was a vindic-
tive prosecution by the International Electric Tele-
graph Company (Baron Rothschild being only the
nominalprosecutor). The defendants had established
a uniform rate of one shilling messages between
London. and Liverpool, which had materially re-
duced the rates of the other company. Application
was made by the latter company to Chancery to
restrain the defendants, but that court declined to
interfere, leaving the parties to their common law
rights. The prosecution was not for vindicating a
public right, but to put a stop to the working of the
defendants' company. He asked their lordships to
suspend their judgment, on the ground that a bill
had passed the House of Lords which, it was ex-
pected, would pass the House of Commons in a few
weeks, whereby, under certain restrictions, the com-
pany would have power to erect the posts. The de-
fendants discovered their mistake with reference
to their having purchased the promoters' powers
to erect these posts before they erected
them ; but they fell into another common error,
supposing that the consent of the persons who hail
the custody and maintenance of the roads to erect
these posts was sufficient, and that ;they were not
subjecting themselves to the charge of having com-
mitted a legal nuisance. No one was connected
with the custody and maintenance of the roads had
complained of the erection of these posts.
The Lord Chief Justice asked the counsel for the
prosecution whether they would press the court to
give judgment, and compel the removal of the posts,
seeing that the company were before Parliament,
and that the bill had passed the House of Lords
which would give them powers to erect these posts.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., with whom were Mr. Lush,
Q.C., Mr. Mills, Q.C., and Mr. Metcalfe, reminded
their lordships that the bill did not refer to the
present posts, but to posts to be put down, and
under certain restrictions. A conviction had been
obtained, and the nuisance was continuing.
Mr. O'Malley said the defendants had obtained
the consent for these posts that would be required
under the bill for new posts,
The Lord Chief Justice said the court had the
power of using their discretion whether or not they
would suspend judgment. He thought nothing
would be gained by compelling. the company to
take down these posts, when in all probability
they would have the power to put them up again
in a few weeks.
Mr. Bovill again urged there was here a convic-
tion and a continuing nuisance.
Mr. O'Malley said he was ready on the part of
the defendants to enter into any undertaking if the
bill should not to pass to submit to the verdict and
remove the posts.
The Lord Chief Justice said he could not but
think there was some vindictiveness in pressing the
court to give judgment,
Judgment was suspended till the last day of next
term.

ItO&S' V. GREEN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Gibbons showed cause against a rule calling
upon the defendants, the eminent shipbuilders, to
show cause why they should not file better answers
to certain interrogatories put by the plaintiff. The
action was to recover the amount of commission
claimed by the plaintiff for having introduced the
defendants to the Spanish Government, which led
to their entering into contracts for supplying the
Spanish Government with certain ships of war.
The plaintiff contended that the contracts were
obtained through his means. The learned counsel
urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to the an-
swers asked for, on the ground that it would be a
disclosing of communications of a political nature.
The contracts were the property of the Spanish
Government, and the defendants were only their
agents, consequently any information that they pos-
sessed was the property of the Spanish Govern-
ment, He hoped the court would not call upon the
defendants to make State disclosures.
The Lord Chief Justice said the plaintiff did not
ask for confidential communications, but only to be
informed of facts.
Mr. Justice Crompton said he could not see how
information was property. Ships undoubtedly were
such.
The Lord Chief Justice said the questions were
such as ought to be answered. He conceded the
principle contended for by the learned counsel, but
he denied its application to this case.
This was the last day of term. The after term
nisi prius sittings commence to-day (Wednesday).