The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-27 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1849.

of Tonnant, Norge, Bedford, Ramillies, Royal Oak, Ar-
mide, Seahorse, Cydnus, Tr.ve, Btlie
FJule, Gorgon, Aleeite, and Diomede, under CAotain Nleno-
Lockyer.

LAW IN T I:4;M1 GEN CE.
COURT ''.q•• CHANCERY. Jun. 26.
EX PARTE WYLD, IN RE THE WINDING UP ACT.

In this matter, Mr. James Wyld, the inapseller of the
Strand, petitioned the Court, under the Joint-Stock COIF,
panys' Winding•up Act, to apply its provisions for the
purpose of putting an end to the Wheel Lowell Mining
Company, which was formed in 1845 to work certain tin
mines under what is called the cost-book system. Tn.
capital was divided into 500 shares of 25/. each, of which
Mr. Wyld took five, and paid up the whole of the cads.
The speculations proved unprofitable, and the whole of
the paid-up capital being exhausted in the purchase of
machinery and the process of working, the manager, Mr.
William Carne, with the assent of the great body of
the proprietors, made a further call on the shares.
The proprietors responded to the call, and paid accord-
ingly; but Mr. Wyld, who is the only dissentient, refused,
and the manager then brought an action against him
for 1131., the sum demanded, and had a verdict.
Mr. Wyld, on the 20th October, 1848, availed himself
of this Act to endeavour to procure a dissolution of
the company, and having given the usual notice,
presented a petition for a reference to the Master to
take the accounts preparatory to a dissolution. The
company contended, before the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, that this was not one of the cases contemplated
by the Legislature, and that their company did not come
within the scope of the Act; but his Honour was of
opinion that it did, and made the order for a reference to
the Master. _ _ _

Mr. BOLT and Mr. FOLLETT now argued the matter
on a motion to discharge the order. They begged it to
be understood in the outset that the company was per-
fectly solvent; that its affairs were now prosperous; and
there was no member of the company asking fir a disso-
lution except Mr. Wyld. The company denied that they
were within the Act, and they maintained that if they
were the order of the Vice-Chancellor could not stand;
because it made an order to pay Mr. Wyld his costs in
the action, and to deduct them from the 113/. due on calls,
a part of the order of reference. They contended that a
mining company of this kind, perfectly solvent, and ex-
isting before the passing of the Act, did not come within
its provisions, and that everything in the Act pointed to
a different state of things. The difficulty in the case was
raised by a part of the second section; but if that section
was read in connexion with the first section, as it ought,
then all the difficulty vanished. By the first section of
the Act its provisions were to apply to all companies,
corporate or unincorporate, within the provisions of the
Acts of the 7th and Bth Vict., c. 111, and of the Sth and
9th Vict., c. 98, including all companies existing on Ist
Nov., 1844, and which shall have obtained a certificate
of registration, and to all companies which, under the
provisions of the Act to facilitate the dissolution of cer-
tain railway companies, shall, before the Ist of March,
1848, have become bankrupt, and to all companies,
associations, and partnerships, to be formed after the
passing of the Act, whereof the capital or the profits is
or are to be ditided into shares, and such shares trans
feruble without the express consent of the co•partner3,
The second section was to apply to all association
or companies formed for the purpose of working
mines or minerals, and all benefit building societies.
This was not a company formed after the passing of
the Act. It was not the intention of the Legisla-
ture that the Act should be applicable to such a com-
pany, and, if the Court decided that it was, that de-
cision would create alarm. The second section was not
to be read independent of the first, and that was evident
from the interpretation clause, and every provision of
the Act. The Court had a .jurisdiction to order the
winding up, but it had also a discretion to exercise as to
the fitness of the case for the operation of the Act, and
they insisted that this was one of the cases in which it
was not its duty to interfere.
Mr. BACON and Mr. J. HINDE PALMER, in support of
the order, argued that his Lordship could not refuse to
maintain it, unless he was prepared to hold that an im-
portant and independent section of the Act was to be
controlled by another with which it had no connexion.
The language of the Act was clear and precise, and
everything had been done to bring the company within
the jurisdiction of the Court. If the Court did not sup-
port the order, it would exclude a very great number of
companies from its operation, and defeat the intentions
of the Legislature.
His LORDSHIP said he had no doubt the company came
within the letter of the Act, but the real qmestion was,
did it come within its spirit? The Court had a discre-
tion left in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and how tar
it would exercise it in the present case was a question
which, as the point was of great importance, he must
take time to consider. He hoped to be able to dispose
of the matter on Monday.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, Jan. 26.
TURRILL V. CRAWLEY. . .

The question invclved in this case is a most important
one—it is, whether an innkeeper has a lien upon the
goods of a third party for a debt contracted with him.
The plaintiff is a coachmaker in Long-acre, and the de-
fendant is the proprietor of the Norwood Hotel. The
action was brought to recover the possession of a cariage
which he had lent to a lady, named Jordan, who is dead,
and who had resided a short time at the defendant's hotel.
The carriage was lent for three, six, or twelve months,
with a pair of horses, belonging to Messrs. Wim-
bush. After Miss Jordan had resided about three
months at the hotel, she left at the request of the
defendant, as she was unable to pay for the carriage, on
which her arms had been put, and a part of her ward-
robe, which was afterwards sold, was detained, but the
horses were given up. The verdict at that trial went
for the defendant. A rule was subsequently obtained on
the ground that a landlord could not have a lien on the
property of a third party for a debt contracted by a
guest.
Mr. MARTIN (with whom was Mr. Hayes) showed
cause against the rule. Ho contended that, as an
innkeeper was bound to provide sustenance for
his guest, he bad a lien upon all goods which
appeared to be lawfully in his possession. If he
caused the loss of a guest's goods from want of proper
care, he was liable to make the value good ; and again,
he had clearly 'a lien upon the horse of a traveller
which be had fed, so also had the proprietor of land into
Which the horse had strayed and committed injury.
Mr. WHATELY, who appeared in support of the rule,
held that no landlord was bound to provide sustenance
for all persons who may enter his house. Mr. Justice
Storey had laid it clearly down that a landlord was not
bound to provide refreshments to persons who, he had
reason to bslieve, could not pay, or were paupers.
Lord DENIZAN inquired what difference there was
between a landlord seizing a portmanteau and a
carriage?
Mr. WHATELY said there could be little doubt that
a portmanteau belonged to the guest; but there might
be doubt about the ownership of a carriage. It was
a common thing for parties who hired carriages to have
their arms put on them.
Lord DEsistals considered that the defendant was jus-
(Mt d in detaining the carriage. The other Judges con-
curred.—Rule oischarged.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Ilennxs.)
IN RE NEWTON TREEN RICKS.

This insolvent, an actor of some celebrity at the
theatres on the Surrey side of the Thames, applied to
opposed,argoOd supported the on behalf of Messrs.
}b,euidcihsecrh,ardgildi.ierMs,ra.nCdooxike S
Mr.
ap-
plication.
The insolvent on being examined stated that he had
been a licensed victualler at the Fishmongers' Arms,
St. George's-road, Surrey, which house he took about
May, 1847. His debts were now 830/., including 50/.
twice entered, and had been contracted in about 13
months. He had dealt with the opposing creditors for
goods, an." at the beginning of 1848 Messrs. Fulcher
refused to supply him except upon pre-payment ; in
consequence of which Mr. Bennett, agent for Booth and
Co., agreed to open an account with him. Mr. Bennett
was quite aware that he had been dealing with Fulcher
and Co., but did not say that those gentlemen must be
paid before transferring his custom to Booth and Co.
Mr. Bennett did come and ascertain the amount due to
Messrs. Fulcher to be 45/. 14s. 11d., and gave him (in-
solvent) a cheque on Messrs. Booth for that amount.
Did not know that cheque was iven for the express pur-
pose of paying Fulcher and Co.'s demand. It was given
to pay the debt due to those gentlemen.
The cheque was produced, and was drawn upon Booth
and Co.' in favour of Fulcher and Co., on account of N.
T. flicks, dated May 5, 1848.
Insolvent's examination resumed—There was no sti•
pulated time for the cheque to be paid to Messrs. Ful-
cher. He kept it by him for some days, until some one
from the opposing creditors house should call upon him,
but did not tell them he had the cheque. About that
time a bill of exchange came due, which he put off as
long as he could, but was at last compelled to use part
of the cheque to pay the bill. Took about 20/. or 301.
from the cheque, but did not pay the rest to Messrs.
Fulcher, hoping to be enabled to give them the whole
amount, The cheque was taken, to Messrs. Booth's and
cashed by his housekeeper while he was out.
Mr. Fulcher proved that the cheque had never been
paid to his firm.
Mr. Bennett stated that in May last he was in the
service of Messrs. Booth, and that about that, time he
called upon the insolvent, who said be was glad of the
visit, as he had been dealing
witi. Messrs. Fulcher, and
wished to close their account. Witness asked what he
owed them, and said it was not customary to supply a
customer of another house until the debt due to the latter
was paid. Insolvent said he should be glad if Booth
and Co. would close the account with the other house,
and accordingly witness, having obtained the sanction
of his employers, went the next day to insolvent's house,
and informed him that be was empowered to pay off
Messrs. Fulcher's debt, and gave him the cheque pro-
duced. Insolvent said be should be going or sending
the next day to Messrs. Fulcher, and would hand them
the cheque.
Insolvent to Mr. SAabooD—Had been for many years
an actor. In May, 1847, hoping to improve his prospects,
he took the public-house, in which he had sunk the
whole of the professional earnings of himself and wife.
The business did not prosper, and he consulted his land-
lords, Meux and Co,, about settling with his creditors,
and the first step Messrs. Meux ttook was to put in a
distress.

Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said, if the insolvent had
any means in the world of satisfying the opposing cre-
ditors, he thought it would be well.
Mr. SARGOOD said he shou!d contend that there was
no privity between Fulcher and Co. and Booth and Co.,
and with respect to the last named firm they did not ap-
pear to complain. At the same time he should not wish
in any way to prevent the insolvent from adopting the
suggestion of the Court, if he had the power.
£lr. COOKE said, he had as yet not made any harsh
comments on the case, and would rather the hint of the
Court should be adopted, both for the creditors' sake

and or that of the insolvent. H,wr,iilri. th, refort,, en,)

•,,n j

Mr. ConAntsionorAttlus would t?rilarge
hail ;-or thus d utOes tho insolvent bond fide
made an arrangem,7,nt with the crAitors, he would most
likely- be prevented from acting tor ‘,oine time.
The case was tlwri adjourned until Ftlbruary 26.

LIVERPOOL, •TAN. 2F —T"" cc•n

id p Laislikq till
both bonded and tree. Sack flour met