The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-02 00:00:00

Paurtt Mstition

READING, GUILDFORD, AND
REIGATE RAILWAY.—(THIS DAY.)
The half-yearly meeting of this company was
holden, at its offices, in the Royal Exchange-buildings,
this day, at twelve o'clock, David Salmons, Esq ,
the chairman of the company, being in the chair.
There was but a thin attendance of sha'reholders.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr. BAILEY, the
secretary, read the following report :
" The directors of this company are happy to announce
to the shareholders at the presnt meeting that the wot ks
along the entire line of railway which this company is
empowered to construct—viz., from Reading to Ash,
being 20 miles, and from Shalford to-Red Hill Station,
being 19i miles, are completed, and ready for opening ;
a certain portion, forming part of the main line, viz,
from Shalford to Ash, being 6i miles, is under construc-
tion by the South-Western Company; but the directors
have every assurance that such portion will be ready for
opening within the present month, thereby completing
the whole of the line.

" The two esti% me parts of the line, viz., from Read.
ing to Farnborough, and from Dorking to the Red Hill
Station, were opened for traffic by the Suuth-Eastern
Company on the 4th day of July last.
" The directors observe with regret that the Brighton
Company intend to assist the Direct Portsmouth Com-
pany in their attempt to make a line from Epsom to
Leatherhead. Situated as that place is, midway between
Epsom and Dorking, such a line would necessarily
have an injurious effect on the interests of this
company and its lessees. The Brighton Company do
not hesitate to avow in their report that their assistance
to such a scheme is for the purpose of diverting the
traffic from the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate line.
The directors feel assured that this project will fail;
that neither Parliament nor the Courts of Law, will
sanction such an unwarrantable proceeding, and it is
the duty of this company to protect their own property
and that of their lessees by every means in their power.
" The half-yearly accounts, which have been duly au-
dited, are annexed.
" The directors have to ask of the proprietors their
sanction to the issue of such an amount of debentures as
may be required to fulfil the engagements of the com-
pany beyond the capital of 600,0001.; for this purpose
the directors propose that such sanction be given for a
sum not exceeding 50,0001.
" The directors have pleasure in testifying to the great
skill displayed by Mr. Barlow as a practical engineer in
carrying out the works of the line. _ .

the
made
remunerativeT l Thii
nmehueep accountssiosit(Signed)
directorsocntotehmhdet eop
ll
last
hs: hetaet
completed
report.
everyvn,ea,oeopenDufxodtArehjtdvo-
ut,Dl
ietayon,
South-Eastern
eedtaAsrhehsLneofxoooncpwzr
above
oebtnomrdNoda
pshviffit,
taeo
hunccperehi
et
Chairman."
willghmr mga
amounted
wpnngr.ht,o:
eevt when
the line
yreport and
taaoms
ulo3mu7n,otBfol f94lrB.7s3e2si.putl.si
Itd2o.
:b.
leeiaolvsdi 4n.
~g 5
t2ha4el.bballafilasan.ncsceed
ni nhhcalaunndddi nougtf
in
1 6,
2,7051
h. c IBOAs
t6md.
A
x said, in asking the meeting to
adopt the report, he had but a few observations to
make beyond those contained in the report itself.
The small attendance there to-day was an evidence,
he presumed he might say, of the confidence of the
shareholders in the direction. At the same time it
showed that there was no difference of
opinion or feeling among the proprietary,
where the interests of all were guaranteed, and
therefore though the proprietary itself was relieved
from the superintendence and responsibility which
necessarily attached to all the shareholders embarking
in a railroad undertaking; yet the report this day
presented some subjects of interest. In the first place,
they were arriving at a termination of their labours.
It was three years since they got their Act of
Parliament, and in the midst of difficulties and
trying times they had expended their capital
advantageously and economically ; they had com-
pleted their line up to the South-Eastern Company,
who would hereafter be responsible for the guaranteed
expenditure on the line. There was a committee
of the South-Eastern Company who superintended
all the outlay, providing therefore for the best audit that
could be introduced. They had approved of the expendi-
ture on the line, and therefore, he thought, no difficulty
whatever could arise as to the amount of expenditure
which had been incurred ; and the shareholders
would henceforward be relieved from all responsibi-
lity as regarded the outlay on the line. The meeting
would observe in the report that the directors had
thought it fit to notice in strong terms an attack
which was about to be made on the company by the
Direct Portsmouth Company, in league with the
Brighton Company, for the purpose of making
a line of four miles from Epsom to Lea-
therhead, by which the traffic on the Reading,
Guildford, and Reigate line would be greatly injured.
The Direct Portsmouth Company had had a Bill for
three years for making a direct line of railway from
Epsom to Portsmouth ; yet they had not even put a
spade into the ground with a view to carry out their
undertaking ; but on the eve of the Reading, Guild-
ford, and Reigate line being opened they had connected
themselves with the Brighton Company in an
unhandsome rivalry to deprive this line of the
traffic from Dorking to Reigate. He was in a pecu-
liar position ; he had the honour to be the chairman
of this company, and it was his duty to watch over
its interests ; and although the shareholders were
guaranteed from loss by the South-Eastern Com-
pany, yet a moral duty was imposed upon them to
protect, as far as in them lay, the interests of
their lessees.—(Hear, hear.) He had an interest in
the Brighton Company to the extent of 9,000/. ;
therefore in the observations he had made he could
not be supposed to be animated by any emnity
towards that company. It became, he thought, a
great public question, whether those contentions
among railway companies ought not to cease, and
whether railroads, like other property, ought
to be based upon the principle of public con-
venience, and' whether, affording as they
did to the public great accommodation,
they should not be entitled, under the sanction of
Parliament, to a fair remuneration for the capital
which they had laid out.—(Hear, hear.) With those
observations he begged to move that the report
which had been read be adopted and printed for cir-
culation among the shareholders.
Mr. M'CATTAR seconded the resolution.

Mr. CRADDOCK, a shareholder of the South Eastern
Company, could not help thinking that this line would
be a loss to the South-Eastern Company. lie consi-
dered it right to ask what steps were to be taken for
the purpose of reducing the expenses of management ?
The CHAIRMAN said that was rather a matter for
the South-Eastern Company themselves to answer
than for him. All that the directors of this line
wished to do was to wind up their affairs as soon
as possible, and to leave the matter in the hands of the
South-Eastern Company.
The resolution was then put and carried unani-
mously.

A vote of thanks to the Chairman having been
moved, seconded, and carried unanimously, the meet.
ing separated.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
DUCKWORTH AND OTHERS V. ENGLISH.-SMITHFIELD

BANKERS.
The plaintiffs in this action are salesmen in Smithfield-
market, and defendant is a butcher, and the claim was
for 61. ss. 3d., the value of five lambs supplied. This
was a case arising out of the custom of Smithfield-
market.

MT. SIDNEY SMITH appeared for the plaintiffs, and
said that the defendant had pleaded payment. It would
therefore be unnecessary for him to adduce evidence.
That there had been some mistake there could be no
doubt; but he was far from imputing any ill intention
on the part of the defendant, -who was a highly respect-
able tradesman.

Mr. CROUCH, for defendant, stated the custom of the
market, which was, that after cattle had been bought the
purchaser went to the salesman's bankers and paid in
the amount, but no receipt was given, the amount being
merely entered to the account of the salesman, who be-
fore the animals were delivered sent the drover to the
bankers to ascertain whether the amount bad been paid
in, and if the reply was in the affirmative the animals
were delivered up, and that course had been pursued
in the present instance. The question, therefore, was
whether the money had or had not been paid to the
bankers, which, from the peculiar mode of doing busi-
ness, might have been done, but entered to a wrong
account. Another curious fact was the manner in which
the communication was made to the salesman that the
money was paid, which was by the drover telegraphing
by holding up his hand and calling " All right."
Walter Pemberton was called to prove the custom, and
in answer to questions by the jury, he said that some-
times there were fifty or sixty butchers in the bank at
the same time, and there were as many books on the
counter; no receipt was given, and the person paying did
not always see the money entered. Ile was drover on
the present occasion, and swore positively that he did not
remove the lambs until the drover returned and said the
money was paid.
The UNDER-SHERIFF asked the witness why it was
necessary to call " All right," and wave the hand also?
The witness said it was a custom, he did not know
why, but the drover sometimes could not get near4he
told.

The UNDER•SHERIFF— Then sometimes you cannot
hear. I suppose there is a noise occasionally in
Smithfield. Witness—Yes, what with the bellowing et
the cattle, the barking of the dogs, and the shouting,
there is a good deal of noise.
Mr. Gibbs, a butcher, was in company with defendant
when ho bought the lambs, and afterwards saw him go
Challis's bank to pay in according to the custom of the
bankers.
The UNDER SHERIFF said they could not go into the
matter as a custom of bankers, for bankers in Lombard-
street, or elsewhere, did not give receipts by sending out
their customers to wave their bands. lie asked whether
Challis's were regular bankers or for this purpose ?
Mr. Smith said they were regular bankers.
Witness i❑ cross-examination said, that such dealings
wsro for ready money, and he did not know that the
salesmen were in the habit of giving credit to butchers.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it was a very loose way of
doing business.
Mr. Sxtut denied the truth of this statt.ment, and

submitted that it was beycnd all probability that any
man would pay money in without seeino it cntf red, bur. '
ho should prove thet the anim3l9 were delivered in this
case before the drover returned to say that the lambs had
not been paid for. This occurred in ennsi quence of tho
market being about to close, and defendant being known
to 1)4 a respectable man. There was another fact, that
defendant, on being applied to, said he had paid the
money into the bank, and saw it entered in the book.
I The book was in court, and defendant might call for it,
but plaintiff could not make it evidence fur himself.
S:uk,s, the plaintiff's drover, proved the delivery of
the animals, ae last stated. Sometimes they were deli-
vered by mistake, but as soon as it was discover, d they
were sent atter; but in this case that was Lot done, as
Mr. English was well known.
Popjoy, the drover, who went to the banker's, swore
positively that he did not make a signal—he had been
seventeen years in the market, and at ways made a re-
pur; by word of mouth.
Mr. Gooding, clerk at the bank, proved that there
was no entry of payment in any of the bank books;
entries were always made in the presence of the parties
paying the money. Credit was Oven to the amount of
20,0001. on Monday. The money turned was 100,0001.
a &y. The salesmen's accounts were made up with
them every evening, and an entry made in error would
be detected.

Mr. Jobson, another clerk, proved the same facts.
Mr Cnoucrt replied, and said that if the jury loon d
a verdict for the plaintiff, it would be imputing, con-
spiracy and perjury un the part of the plaintiff and his
witness. He complained that the case had not been
brought in the County Court, where defendant himself
might have been examined.
The banker's book was put in, and on the day in
question there was an entry of 61. 53. for five lambs to a
Mr. Hannah, of Cambridge-heath, and it was somewhat
singular that it was the only instance where the address
was inserted in that account.
Mr. Jobson, on being recalled, said he remembered
making the entry.
The UNDER-SHERIFF asked if Mr. Hannah was pre-
sent, and was answered in the negative.
The UNDER-SIIERIFF summed up.
The jury, after consulting a considerable time, said
they were not likely to agree, and were locked up, and
on their return gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 61. ss.