The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-11 00:00:00

7
any such application as this. There remained 1, 00
shares, which the defendant admitted that be had ap-
plied to his own use by way of compensation for the,Tr:
adequate salary which he received from the plaintlu
This was certainly an argument which could not be r,e7
ceived "by the Court. When the defendant accepted the
situation of chairman of the railway, he was aware that
the salary was only U. per week, and most probab
he believed that the influence and power which woul
belong to the chairman of a great company,filo thet
York and North Midland Railway, would be eufficieand,
remuneration in itself. If the defence set up were
mitted, there was no clerk who might not justify hia
ropriation of his master's funds by the excuse
dthat h.!
id not consider himself adequately rewarded for Ina
invaluable services. A further general defence was theicl
set up, which was that the shareholders had acquiesce
in the allotment of these shares and in the disposition 01
them. As evidence of this, it was stated that the sharF:
register books were produced at the general meeting,ellci
Jan. and July, 1847, and in Jan. and July, 1848' 3,1'1,1
that the shareholders must be supposed to have
them. In Jan., 1847, at the end of the list of slia,rie
holders, there appeared 9,610 shares set down
in
name of Mr. Hudson ; in July, 1847, 8,391 • in tin
' s 1
1848, 5,141 ; and in July, 1848, 4,991, whieb,
number was all that remained of the 12,050 snar-s.
originally placed at the disposition of the directo.r.o
From the manner and the position of this entry'
Honour was of opinion that these shares were sinlPnia
a register of shares which remained unappropriatecl':;ea
were so considered by the shareholders. Had theye
originally allotted to Mr. Hudson, they would ha
°
appeared in his name in the alphabetical order, and ilt
at the end of the list. If they had been appropriated 1
Mr. Hudson, he would have had to pay the deposit and
calls upon them, but it did not, appear that any
deposit or call had been paid, or that any dividend shad
been declared on them. With regard then to the halt
and West Riding Extension shares, his Honour was 0,
opinion the defence wholly failed. He had now to 07
sider the Hull and Selby shares, and applying the Id,
principles to this part which he had already expresg
he was of opinion also that this part of the theu
fendants case also failed. In this part °f
been
case about 936 shares were said to have "ihe
appropriated by the defendant, and that too without the
sanction, which he had pleaded in the first part di,,"
case, of the resolution of a general meeting of the
holders. The defendant urged that he was to be 0°,11" ,
dered in this case, in the light of an allottee, but his I'°-eil
our was of opinion that he had no claim to any 6cur
position, and that for reasons he already stated, the ,
fendant was nothing more than the servant of thel/13 tll,llO
tiffs', and that he was therefore liable to account, for P
shares which he had disposed of. He was of opilli:901,3:
therefore, that the defendant's case had wholly fn a.
and he should order a decree declaring that the doe'the
ant, as a trustee, in his capacity of chairman for tuit
York and Midland Railway Company, bound to ancLo
to the company for all the profits derived by him ij'AT-est
the sale of the shares specified, in the East and s.
Riding Extension, and in the Hull and Selby Itan'iihe
He should also direct an account to be taken °'",
monies and profits which had been received by the de'
e" ,
ant, the defendant to be charged 5 per cent, on the sal9j
and credit to be given to the defendant for all sums
Bo
'o'
by him to the use of the company, and all just a-
,t
ances to be made. In all cases where the exact price be
which the shares were sold, or the time, could ne've•
ascertained, the defendant to be charged with the 300
rage market of the period when they were sold. A el.
inquiry to be subject to such special directions arl'the
lowances as might appear to be necessary during
progress of it. ed
Sir F. Kelly asked what would be the course pu.--•
•
if it should appear that the defendant had sold sine nO
tion of the shares at an actual loss. ch
s Honour said he had not had any evidence of alyoBiiticii
circumstance brought before him, but of course, if spa-
should appear to be the case, in taking the account,
cial allowance would be made for it.
Decree accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Gurney.)

BOND V. NINE.
The plaintiff is a surgeon, and defendant is an °o
t.
Ile3". The action was brought to recover the sum n
2s. for services rendered, and 21. 4s. Bd. for money
out for the use of the defendant.A Withlt appeared that both parties had been connecte-
ciaot
railway company, which failed in embryo. Defer'
band
l the solicitor, he brought an action in 1.847)7. 2g,
12aintiff was subpcened as a witness, and received 2.,!r0s
He,a however, went a short distance to induce Sir Jam.
Hay, y, one of the directors to give evidence, and, ,13141:1:00
contended that he was to be paid, and chargeo now claimed.
called to
BuCpraporttaitnhJe J
chie
ones,
tioffne
bof the. d.ireetors,.was
ut his examination -oe
ianadcsross-exanainatio'n by Mr. W. R. Buchanan ( of
treet) for defendant, he denied all knowleog
uerendant • any P 3
having given any orders or promised meat.
11is Honour said he did not require to heariotri
Buchanan, he wasperfectly • - verdict
satisfied, and a
go for defendant.
Verdict accordingly.

SECONDARIES COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary potter.)
BENNETT v. WINTER.
The plaintiff resides in Norwich and defendant
London, and the action was brought to recover the 60
of 81. for money lent to defendant's
wife seven Ye
ago. •
And
Plaintiff proved advancing the money, but de-en
Ana
swore that it was borrowed without his knowledge/
his wife had never told him.
;
To take the ease out of the Statute of Liln'ta-floor o,l*
witness was called to prove an admission within 6r9_,,,ee
Defendant positively denied this, but the jury' g;.l"'
the case, and gave a verdict for the amount claimed.