The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-09 00:00:00

W INTELLIO ENCE.— Dec. 8.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.)
LUD V. COLVIN.

This suite was instituted to determine the rights of
various claimants to the estate of the late P. Cockrane,
formerly a surgeon of the Hon. East India Company.
The amount of the fund now standing in court is said to
be about 200,0001.
Mr. Welford, on behalf of one of the parties claiming
an interest in the fund, applied to the court for further
time, in order that a communication might go out to
India to examine witnesses. The circumstances under
which his client claimed were as follows :—ln the year
1790, Mr. Cockrane, being then in India, married, in
the Mahommedan form, a native Indian lady, by whom
he had one daughter. This daughter was the person on
whose behalf the present application was made, and it
was for the purpose of proving the fact of this alleged
marriage that the commission to India was required. In
support of this application, the learned counsel read a
statement, on oath, made by a gentleman holding a govern-
ment appointment in India, which set out a conversation
between the deponent and the lady alleged to have been
married according to Mahommed law to Mr. Cockrane,
in which she gave an account of the circumstance of her
marriage with that gentleman, and said that she never
had any proofs of the facts except the marriage certifi-
cate of the native priest, which however was, at the
time of the conversation almost destroyed by the
white ants.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the white ants were a
very common receptacle for missing Indian doctiments.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. George Collins opposed the
application, on the ground that a great length of time
had already elapsed since the claim was first made, and
• that the claimant ought not to be permitted to keep the
matter in its present uncertain state for an unlimited
length of time.
Mr. Norris appeared for other parties.
The Vice-Chancellor thought that the matter had
etter stand over until the next seal, when a commission
could be asked for in the ordinary way. The other side
, • should be at once served with a notice of motion for a
commission.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart.)
• IN RE THE IMPERIAL SALT AND ALKALI COMPANY, AND
IN RE THE WINDING UP ACTS.
A company was formed in 1836, for the purpose of
manufacturing soap and alkali from salt. By the con-
stitution of the company, it was provided that its capital
should consist of 56,000/. divided into shares of 121.
10s. each ; that there should be six directors with power
to add to their number, and that the directors should
have power to borrow money, and to manufacture and
trade, and to have power to enter into all contracts
and engagements for those purposes on behalf of the
said company. It was also agreed that the company
should purchase an estate in Worcestershire for the
purpose of carrying on therein the works of the com-
pany from a Mr. Richard Parker, at a price of 45,0001.,
of which 20,000/. was to be paid down in money, and
the residue in shares of the company. It appeared that '
Mr. Parker had previously contracted to purchase the
property for the sum of 13,0001., and had paid 1001.
deposit on the purchase. It appeared also that about
16,0801. had been subscribed by the shareholders, of
whioh 15,0001. was paid by Mr. Parker on account. The
directors borrowed from Messrs. Morrell, bankers, at Ox.-
ford, a sum of money which in 1837 had amounted to
about 20,000/. A memorandum was given to Messrs.
Morrell, charging the amount advanced by them on the
. property purchased. This memorandum was dated the
25th of February, 1837, and was signed by five direc-
tors, who were the only acting directors at the time,
the Messrs. Morrell being two. Mr. Garrett was the
sixth director, but he was at the time abroad, and his
name was added to the memorandum by one of the five
directors assuming to act for him. The purchase money
was paid, and the purchase completed in April, 1837.
The property was conveyed to the Messrs. Morrell and
Mr. RainQford, three of the directors, in trust for the
company, and the whole legal estate had become by sur-
vivorship vested in Mr. Morrell. Messrs. Morrell advanced
altogether about 90,0001. to the company. Mr. Morrell,
as the survivor, was solely entitled to this amount.
Linder these circumstances Mr. Morrell went in before
'the Master Mr. Tinney (to whom the winding-up of the
affairi of the company had been referred) and sought to
be admitted as a creditor of the company for the amount
which he and his deceased partner had advanced to en-
able the company to make the above purchase and other-
wise, and a declaration that he was entitled to a lien
upon the property purchased for the amount advanced
to enable the purchase to be made by virtue of the above
memorandum of the 25th of February, 1837. Master
Tinney, however, by a special report, dated the 11th of
July, 1353, found that Mr. Morrell took no lien on the
estate so purchased.
This was a motion to discharge that report.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. 13eavan
appeared in support of the motion.
Mr. Malin, Mr. Daniel, and Mr. Hetherington ap-
peared for the official manager.
The case Svae.argned at great length during yesterday
and to-day. ' •
The Yice-Chancellor tirsol44.3rery elaborate review of
the circumstances of the case. Ile said he felt himself
obliged to differ from the Master.. It appeared to his
- Honour that at the time when the amount was borrowed
there were only five acting directors, one being abroad.
In that respect the direction was imperfect ; but the
purchase of the property had been agreed on as part of
the arrangement on which the company had been estab-
lished, and it was clearly necessary that the property
should be purchased, and the doing so was within the
scope of the partnership authority, otherwise the coin-
- pany could not have proceeded ; the assets of the part-
nership having been otherwise expended the loan be-
came necessary. In the present case he could not per-
ceive how the company eould at one and the same time
repudiate the contract and yet claim to retain the money
which they had obtained under it. Now here Messrs.
Morrell had advanced the money, by means of which
the partnership had obtained the estate, and the share-
holders had adopted, or at least they had not questioned,
the transaction. Under these circumstances it seemed
to him that Messrs. Morrell had acquired a lien on the
estate which they claimed, and he thought the memo-
randum valid.. A declaration to that effect was made.