The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-10 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BA.NDON IRON COMPANY C. LAWRENCE.
The arguments in this case, which were partly heard
on Wednesday lust, were resumed again to-day by Mr.
Needham, on the part of the plaintiffs. The action was
brought to recover certain calls due from the defendant
as a Chart holder in the company, which had been
incorporated under the Joint Stock Act, by virtue
of a certificate of complete registration. The pleas
in substance were, that the deed of settlement at the

time it was presented to the registrar of joint-stock
companies, to obtain the incorporation of the company,
iNsi detective in certain particulars, mentioned in sche-
dule A of the Act. These pleas were demurred to, and
the case, therefore, came before the Court on demurrer,
the plaintiffs contending that when a limited authority
was created by Act of Parliament such as that given to the
registrar to hear and to adjudicate upon acase,the decision
come to within the limits of such authority could not be
reviewed. Powers were given to the registrar to examine
the deed of settlement before he registered the com•
pany, in order to see that it was fit for incorporation,
and having given a certificate as required under the Act,
it was contended, even supposing his judgment to be in-
correct, that his decision upon the point was final, and
that the company must be held to be fully incorporated.
The COURT thought the pleas were bad, and that the
matter set forth in them did not prevent the company
acting as a corporation with the usual powers of suing
and being sued. The judgment of the Court ought
therefore to be for the plaintiffs.
Judgment accordingly for the plaintiffs.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
NUISANCES REMOVAL ACT.

Sir Joux BAILEY was instructed to move for a rule to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue directed
to the mayor and magistrates of Kingston-upon-Hull,
requiring them to issue a distress warrant for the pur-
pose of levy ing five different penalties, of which William
Jackson had been convicted under the Nuisances Re-
moval Act of 1848. It appeared by his affidavit that the
justices refused to act on the ground that the conviction
was illegal. The conviction took place under the 16th
section of the 11th and 12th Victoria, chap. 123, called
the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act,
which provided that whoever should obstruct any person
acting under the authority of the Act, or willfully
violate any directions in regulations issued by the Board
of Health should be liable in every case to a penalty of
51. It further enacted that every person not
performing what he was ordered by the magis-
trates acting in execution of the Act should be
liable to a further penalty of 51. The affidavit
upon which he moved was made by Mr. Chapman, who
stated that he was. clerk and attorney to the Skullcoats
Poor-law Union ; and that acting in that capacity, on
the 28th of last July he obtained a conviction under the
Act against ene William Jackson, a pig-dealer, in the
full penalty of Si, and costs, amounting to 11. 151. 6d.
' Mr. Chapman went on to state that he obtained four
other convictions against the same party, but when he
applied for a distress warrant, Mr. Lee, one of the ma-
gistrates sitting on the bench, got up lit his place and
said the premises belonged to him; and thereupon the
magistrates refused the application. Their clerk, how-
ever, had since told the deponent that they thought the
hest mode of settling the question was by applying to the
Court of Queen's Bench fur a mandamus, and hence the
present application.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted a rule to show cause.
Rule nisi accordingly.