The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-12 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

ROSS V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
The Attorney-General had obtained a rule, in this
case, calling upon the Great Western Railway Company
to show cause why they should not permit him to inspect
the whole of the books of the company. It appeared
that Mr. Ross represented a gentleman named Mackin-
tosh, deceased, who had possessed a large stake in the
Concern. In order to obtain access to the books of the
company he clothed himself with the power of a creditor
and demanded, under the 138th section of the Acts by
which the company was incorporated, to inspect the
books in order that he might ascertain the exact value
of the property left by Mr. Mackintosh. He bad been
permitted to see several books, but he complained that
he had only been allowed to see the receipt books, whilst
others were withheld from him.
Sir FITZROY KELLY showed cause against the rule,
and produced the affilavits of Mr. &mews''s, the secre-
tary of the company, and affidavits of several of the
officers, setting forth that,,,the applicant was shown
the books of receipts and expenditure, which contained
all the transactions of the company, and that they were
scrupulously correct. Indeed, he had been permitted to
inspect ail the books sp,cified in the 138.11 section of the
Act. It was true he was not allowed to see the whole
of the books, which were most voluminous, and com-
prised almost a library, but the books he saw contained
the general totals of the whole of them. If he were en-
titled to see the whole of the books he would become
most improperly acquainted with all the private trans- actions of the company, such as particulars with respect
to loans, notes, and mortgages of the company. In order
to remove any imputation that the company was unwil-
ling to have its books inspected, he should be happy to
submit them all to the view of one of the Masters of the
court. It was a groundless application, made not as in
the case of an ordinary creditor, but for an indirect pur-
pose, and he submitted that the rale should be discharged
with costs.
Mr. MILLS followed on the same side.
The ATTORNEY: GENERAL spAte in support of the
rule. The Acts spoke in the plural number.
Lord PENMAN. said the Act spoke of "a berk;” but
it was obvious that more than one book was required.
He.conterided that the Act meant the: a creditor should
I inspect the .whole of the books used by the company;
otherwise, how could th, real qato of.. the company—
how could the condition of a merchant's affairs be ascer-
tained and valued, except the whole of his books were
inspected? To produce such books as those stated was
a mere delusion. If they said they had no such books,
he admitted that would be an answer; but it they had, a
creditor, in the position of Mr. Ross, was entitled to
inspect them all.
Mr. J. BROWN was heard on the same side.
lb' COURT th"light the company had substantially
court lied with the provisions of the Att. The book
hp. c tied as the o CoOkt a person had a right to see.
Rule discharged.

THE SALE OF A CADETSHIP.
THE QUEEN V. KENDALL. BIIkCItES, LINLEY AND

BICKLEY,

The defendan.: in 1,614 jell lr t 53 been re•
peated iy be ery appe 7eo. in a,!eordance,
eoteee, On the deo,' of the ~,ut s
The ATTORNEY-GENFRAL judgmmt of ih,•
Court upon ill,-m. It will he rce.4leet, d that they were
found guilty of conspiring together for the sale of u. e
detbhip.

Mr. Sergeant Sinn-addressed the Court in mitigatioo
of punishment on behalf of Mr. Bickley, who has been
for twenty years an attorney of the Court.
Mr. M. GRANDEES followed on behalf of Mrs,
Linley.
An affidavit was produced by Mr. Kendall, which was
read by one of the Masters. It stated that having been
absent from England for many years, he was not aware
on his return that the aching of a cadetship was en
illegal act.
'lke ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was not instructed
to press for undue severity towards the defendant!; nut
he tru,ted the Court would support the Legislature in
putting a stop to a traffic of this kind. He then recalled
the attention of the Court to the facts of the case. The
Court could not fail to be of opinion that the whole of
the defendants were perfectly aware of the illegality of
the transaction in which they all embarked.
Mr. Justice PATTESON passed sentence upon the de-
fendants—Mr.Kendall to twelve months' iqqarisonment
in the Queen's Prison, and to pay a fine of 1,0001., and
to be imprisoned until the fine be paid; Mr. Bickley to
one year's imprisonment; Mrs. Binckes the same; and
Mrs. Liuley six months.
The defendants were then removed in custody.

EXCHEQ UE it IS ➢A► Y.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

IN THE MATTER OF THhTHANDIERBIII.ITH RENT CHARGE.

JUDGMENT.

Mr. LUSH, on a form.TrocTasion, obtained a rule
this case calling on the vicar of Hammersmith to show
cause why an order, directing the Sheriff of Mb:idle:l,x
to assess for certain arrears of rent charge, in hey
of tithes, in the parish of Hamm. rilrith, should not be
set aside, together with the subsequent proceedings.
Cause was shown some terms ago, and the judgment of
the Court was suspended. It ai peered that the particu•
tars of the ease were as follow:—An attorney at Hum-
inerstrith allotted to a poor man a piece of laud to cul,
tivate for his own use and benefit; an,r, in consequence
or his poverty, the magistrates exempted him from the
payment of rates and taxes. • The Inter, however, did
not relinquish his claim to the tithes, which were com-
muted into a rent charge, but prosecuted it by distrait,-
irig for the amount. After some interlocutory proceed-
ings, a Judge's order was obtained directing the Sheriff
of Middlesex to summon a jury and proceed to trial,
for the purpose of assessing the amount of arrears.
The case was accordingly heard in spite of a notice trots
the other side, to the effeet that, as the order for trial
had been obtain ex parte, it must be considered null and
void.

Mr. Baron PAItKE was of opinion that the rule ought
to be made absolute, on the ground that the Judge'-
order for assessing the vicar's claim could not be ob-
tained ex parte.
The Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr:
Baron Matt, took a different view of the case. The)
considered that it had been for some time the general
practice of the Court to grant such orders, and were of
option that the rule ought to be discharged.
The rule was accordingly discharged.