The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-10 00:00:00

DIRECT LONDON AND EXETER.

On Saturday a prolonged argument took place be.
fore the Master in Chancery (Brougham), with refe-
rence to the alleged liability of the directors who bad
the management of this concern, and the charges of
fraud preferred against them by the official manager
in his report of investigation.
A number of counsel appeared for the parties
arraigned.
Mr. SELWYN, who appeared for Captain Pope, one
of the directors, contended that if fraud existed, the
directors were not liable to be charged as a body in
equity, but per se at common law by the contributories.
Mr. H. CLARK, on behalf of Sir Bruce Chichester,
argued that the official manager was going .beyond
his province and his functions as defined by the Act,
which declared his duties to be simply the reporting
the liabilities and assets, and making out the list of
the contributories.

Mr. HETHERINGTON, who appeared for Dr. Philli-
more and Mr. Chambers, said that the former, as
Chancellor of the diocese of Salisbury, and the latter
as Recorder of the same city, had connected them-
selves with the company with the view of benefiting
it locally, and had disbursed the assets in their hands
as members of the Committee of Finance, in accord
anee with the expressed views of the shareholders,
and had not meddled with these moneys until after a
meeting of the company had been held to wind up its
affairs under Lord Dalhousie's Dissolution Bill. The
official manager had no right to dictate what the law
was upon these questions. His report in all probability
would give rise to further proceedings on the subject,
and this system if pursued would render the operation
of the Joint-stock Winding-up Act a curse, instead
of a blessing to the country.
The MASTER observed that if the official manager
should not be the proper party to conduct the case
against the alleged mismanaging directors, then he
took it to be in the power of any contributory to
do so.

After much further argument it was agreed to
adjourn the consideration of the question until Friday,
when other parties, with Mr. Daniel for the official
manager, will be heard in reply.

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE.
During the past week this company have success-
fully launched broadside, and deposited at the end of
their pier in the Humber, opposite Hull, the great
pontoon of iron plates, 400 feet long, forming a
landing-place, by means of descending platfotms
from the pier, on to which out of the railway car-
riages alongside passengers will embark in the steam-
boats that are to ferry them in a few minutes across
with the least possible detention. The fabric is fifty
feet wide, eight deep, weighs 700 tons, and was towed
to its destination by six steamers.

MR. HUDSON AND THE YORK AND BERWICK.
Mr. Hudson paid to the above company 75,0001.
last week, in quittance of all claims upon him, except
a balance of interest of some 10,0001., which it is
supposed the company will either give up or divide
between them and Mr. Hudson. This includes his
bill for forty odd thousand pounds for the Sunderland
Docks.—Herapath's Railway Journal.

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING

SIB O'CLOCK.

CHESTER CUP.
50 to 1 agst Peep-o'-Day Boy
.50 to 1 agst Lady Evel}n
66 to 1 agst Vesta
66 to 1 agst Lismahagow
66 to 1 agst Chanticleer
66 to 1 agst Cossack
100 to 1 agst Dough
100 to 1 agst Hotspur
100 to 1 agst Blucher
METROPOLITAN STEEPLECHASE.
3 to 1 agst Sir Arthur
4 to 1 agst British Yeoman

DERBY.
30 to 1 agst John•o'-Groft;
33 to 1 agst Mavora
No change in the favourites.

There is good reason to believe that. early in the
ensuing session of Parliament, the Attorney-General
will bring forward, with the consent of her Majesty's
Ministers, a measure having for its object an immediate
extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts.—
Weekly Chronicle.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Edward Nairne, late of No. 3, Warnford-
court, stockbroker, was brought before Sir James
Duke for final examination, charged with not surren-
dering to be examined as a bankrupt in the Court of
Bankruptcy at the time notified in the London
Gazette.

Mr. Lucas appeared on behalf of the creditors ; and
Mr. Humphreys, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
There were two charges against Mr. Nairne—that
of not surrendering; and also his having, as an agent,
unlawfully disposed of certain Exchequer-bills which
had been intrusted to him for safe custody, and with•
out authority to sell or negotiate them.
The facts, as proved at the different examinations,
are shortly these :--The prisoner carried on the busi-
ness of a stockbroker in Warnford-court, and while
so doing :a Mr. Spurgin, from the neighbourhood of
Hounslow, wrs recommended to him by a friend,
as a person who could lay out some money for
him to advantage. Mr. Spurgin came to London,
and was recommended to invest 1.;0001., which he
had brought with him, in Exchequer-bills, at 48s.
That advice was followed, and the Exchequer bill
deposited with Nairne for safe keeping, who said he
would place it in his iron safe at the Exchange, where
he had property to the amount of thousands of pounds.
A few days after Mr. Spurgin placed 7001. more in
the prisoner's hands, who purchased two Exchequer-
bills, one for 5001., the other for 200/. These were
likewise left with Nairne to be deposited with the
1,0001. bill, all to be kept safely, and not to be nego •
tiated or transferred in any way. However, it ap-
peared that the prisoner suddenly disappeared, and it
was then found out that he had resold the Exchequer-
bills shortly after they were left in his care, to Messrs.
Brown and Co., dealers in Exchequer-bills, on the
Stock Exchange. A warrant was issued under the
Act which lately came into force against absconding
bankrupts, and was placed in the hands of Daniel
Forrester, who apprehended the prisoner at Boulogne-
sur-Mer, and brought him to London.
The two charges were clearly established against
the prisoner (who reserved his defence), and ho was
fully committed for trial.
Mr. Helleary, solicitor, observed to Sir James
Duke, that as his client, the Rev. Mr. Muntz, was
obliged to return to his duties in the country he
could not call any evidence respecting the 1,8001.
which that gentleman had sent to, the prisoner to be
invested in Russian bonds, and which he had made
use of, but should, at the next sitting of the Central
Criminal Court, prefer a bill of indictment before the
grand jury.
Mr. Humphreys was surprised that a respectable
solicitor should be so indecent as to advise his client
to pu:sue such an objectionable course when he
could so easily come before a magistrate and let the
prisoner hear all that was said against him, instead of
taking him completely by surprise as to the nature of
the charge.

Sir J:k'NIES DIDT_E thought the prisoner would get
a copy of the depositions.
Mr. Humphreys said that was not the case. A
person, or a set of persons, might go before a grand
jury and prefer a bill of indictment ; notes of the evi-
dence were not taken, or, if taken, were not sent to
the court below, but destroyed, so that any one
might be sent for trial for murder -.without knowing
one word of the evidence he vva* -to be prepared to