The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-21 00:00:00

NEW BRUNSWICK.

The year that has just closed has been one of unusual
prosperity in the province of New Brunswick. When
the duties on foreign timber and deals imported into
Great Britain were reduced, the lumberers of this
country thought their occupation was gone, but owing
to foreign vessels being allowed to come here and enter
into competition with British vessels in the carrying
trade the freights became much lower than formerly, thus
benefiting the general business of the country, although
injuring to some extent, the shipowners. The great
field opened up, however, in the Australian trade has,
to a considerable extent, remunerated our shipowners
and shipbuilders for the loss sustained for a short
time by the repeal of the navigation laws. The ships
now built at this port, with a view to their being classed
and made capable of trading to any part of the world,
are of a most superior description, both as regards model
and build, and so encouraging have been the prospects
of the shipbuilders during the past year that forty-five
new ships, measuring 42,064 tons, have been built and
fitted out at this port in 1852 ; this would give an average
to each vessel of 934 tons. Nearly all of these forty-five
ships were built either for owners at Liverpool or for sale
at that port, and some of the quickest passages in the
Australian trade have been made by St. John-built ves-
sels. In addition to the above number of -large vessels
built here, there have been a great many small ones,
such as brigs, schooners, &c. It will be seen, therefore,
that our colony has not been altogether ruined (as was
predicted by many of the Protectionists) by the free-trade
measures of England.
Railroad matters do not progress much at present—
the surveys having been discontinued for a few months,
until the spring opens. The bills passed by the Legis-
lature of New Brunswick for the European and North
American Railroad have not yet received the royal
assent, being still in Sir John Pakington's hands. It is
expected the contractors—Messrs. Jackson, Brassey,
Pete, & Co.—will commence the work in the spring of
the present year. Mr. Gladstone's colonial bill for the
Episcopal Church has been under discussion in the dif-
ferent parishes of this diocese, and nearly the whole of
r them, with one or two exceptions, have pronounced
against it. It is supposed that the Bishop of this pro-
vince is favourable to it, as he is an adherent of the
Bishop of Exeter. On the recent appointment of a
Roman Catholic bishop in this colony, he selected the
same title as that of the Episcopal Bishop—viz., Bishop
of Fredericton—so that we have now two bishops under
that title.

TREMENDOUS FALL OF CLIFF IN DOVER.—Yesterday
afternoon (Thursday) about half-past 3 o'clock, the in-
habitants of the lower portion of Snargate-street and the
vicinity were seriously alarmed by the sudden fall of
about 8,000 or 10,000 tons of chalk, situated imme-
diately at the rear of the Paris Hotel, and forming part
of an overhanging mass of cliff, that has given rise to
alarming apprehensions for some few weeks past, on ac-
count of the unusually wet weather which has for the
last few months visited us. Indications of the dreaded
catastrophe were apparent on Tuesday last ; a deep
crack extending some 60 feet from the edge of the cliff
being then visible, and the huge mass being slightly sunk
below the surface of the remainder of the cliff. Imme-
diately on this fact becoming known, the Mayor of
Dover (Charles Lamb, Esq.) took proper measures for
the public safety, by ordering the thoroughfare imme-
diately under the dangerous spot to be closed. The
destruction of property has been very considerable. The
whole of the workshops belonging to Mr. Rouse, coach-
builder,distillery,nu tieyan ads
Co. In
as the
th ew
caseine and
of
M spiritr. vaultsGra nGrant
the
are buried, and also a portion of Mr. Grant's
beenf
jal ulseey
Nsv,
property by the accident is estimated at from 1,0001. to
e Messrs.loss o
arrivedd
be
eto
te,hi either
althoughe r
ri
enatteh that
itt fsff Mr.anticipated
soeuesi
neg orththMessrs.aatt
lut
hr e.
2,0001., but, as far as we can learn, no estimate has
whole of his extensivesmg manufacturingssuer,p
premises are com-
pletely buried. portions of cliff continued to
descend s.t intervals duringa
hourly expected a the evening, and it was al-
mostt the remainder of the insecure
portion would soon follow.

COURT OF CHANCERY—JAN. 20.
(Before Sir W. Page food.)
WILKINS v. THE AUSTRALIAN BALKING COMPANY.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
company from paying the half-yearly dividends to the
shareholders, which would fall due on Monday nest.
' The motion was made under these circumstances :—The
plaintiff, Mr. Wilkins, is a sharebroker, and it appears
that he has been the holder of a certain number of shares
in the Australian Banking Company, /which he purchased
some time after its formation, which was established in
the year 1842. The shares were 251. each, but on the
third series of shares issued the amount paid was only
21. 10s., the holders being bound to pay calls upon re-
ceiving notice to make up the amount of 251. per share.
There were a number of circumstances mixed up in the
arguments in support of the motion, but the point upon
which the plaintiff substantially relied was this—that
although he had only paid the 21. 10s. per share, he was,
in point of fact, entitled to receive,profits on the full
amount of the 251. share, as if it were in reality fully
paid up. The learned counsel supported the claim on
the ground that the plaintiff was awnontable for loss to
the full amount of the share for all the shares he held,
and that being accountable for losses to the full amount,
he was therefore equally entitled to participate in the
amount of profits to the full extent of, each of his shares,
although only 21. 10s. per share was paid up.
After a very lengthened argument,
His Honour proceeded \to, give judgment, and ob-
served, that it had been said on the part of the defendants
that it would be considered an absurdity in the city of
London to say, that a party who had only paid 21. 10s.
on each share should have an equat amount of profit
with those who had paid their sharei in full. Now it
appeared that the company had decided that the shares
were to be 251. each, and that the capital was to be one
million. It had been said on the part of the plaintiff,
that he (the Vice Chancellor)-was bonnd to decide this
motion according to the 33rd clause in the company's
deed. If so, he was bound to say, that he could not
decide it in the plaintiff's favour. ; he admitted that there
was much in the argument that had been used, that
a party should not be subjected to loss without, at
the same time, being entitled to an equal profit. But
the plaintiff had purchased the shares, subject to
the 33rd clause, and could not force the whole
of the capital on the company ; and, if the com-
pany did not receive all the capital, he was put in
the position that he could not receive all the profit,
although he was liable to be accountable for loss. In-
deed, the plaintiff might say, that as he knew he would
not be called upon to pay up the full amount of the
shares, he would make the speculation, as be bad only
21. 10s. per share to pay, and would take his chance of
loss. It appeared that a general meeting was to give
authority to make a call on the new :shares, and it was
presumed the directors would not do so till the calls
were paid upon the old shares. Unless the case was
very clear on the part of the plaintiff, he (the Vice-Chan-
cellor) did not think he would be warranted in prevent-
ing the dividends being paid on Monday next. It was
also to be remembered that the plaintiff was a stock-
broker, and had been receiving dividends for ten years,
and as his attention had been called to the deed in July
last, he might weeks ago have proceeded for a decree.
He (the Vice-Chancellor) did not, therefore, think that
on an interlocutory application he ought to issue an in-
junction in the present state of the proceedings. He had
purposely given his judgment now in order that the party
might have an opportunity afforded him of going else-
where without delay.
Injunction refused accordingly.