The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-10 00:00:00

LOUVAIN A LA SAMBRE
RAILWAY. _

A meeting of the shareholders of this company,
consequent on the refusal of the directors to afford full
information as to the affairs of the company to the pro-
prietors, was held yesterday at the London Tavern.
Mr. BELL was moved to the chair, and said,
that as it was considered that the directors had
withheld certain information from the shareholders
as to their affairs, it was, therefore, deemed advisable
to form a committee to wait on the directors and to re-
quest them to hold a meeting for the purpose of com-
municating the information required. This course the
directors refused to adopt, on the ground that there were
bat three of the directors in London. A deputation
appointed by the shareholders then went to Belgium
and instituted the necessary inquiries into all the
circumstances, which they did according to the best of
their abillity. That committee had made a report which,
if the shareholders required, they would submit to the
meeting, but this report was not unanimously agreed to.
A farther application was made to the directors, and
they had succeeded in getting an engagement
from them that the moment Mr. Sharman, the director
in Belgium, returned they would call a public meet-
ing and afford the information required, but that under
any circumstances they would call a public meeting
before the Ist of next February, sad that the shares
would not be forfeited before that period. Under those
circumstances, it would be for the meeting to determine
whether the report should be read, but in his opinion it
would be better not to adopt that course.
A long discussion as to the propriety of the informa-
tion being submitted to the meeting then took place,
which ended in a resolution to that effect being carried
by a large majority.
Mr. ABRAHAMS then entered into a lengthened state-
ment, which reflected very strongly on the management
of the directors; and after some further discussion the
meeting separated.

LONDONDERRYandENNISKILLEN

RAILWAY.

A spacial general meeting of the proprietors of the
Londunderry and Enniskillen Railway was held yester-
day, at the offices of the company, in Church-passage,
Guildhall, for the purpose of receiving the report of a
select committee of the shareholders, appointed to exa-
mine into the truth of the charges preferred by the local
directors against the officiating staff in London.—Mr. J.
G. Frith in the chair.

The report stated that the committee considered it
unnecessary to express any opinion upon the charges
preferred against the London directors, but thought it
better to lay before the shareholders the present state
of the affairs of the concern. The liabilities of the
company for the cost of the line from Londonderry to
Strabane were as follows, viz. : —Parliamentary and
legal expenses, interest to shareholders, direc-
tors' salaries, office expenses, &e., 24,5241. 4s. 9d.;
cost of making the line; carriages, working stock, engi-
neering, 170,9651. 4s. 9d.—making a total of 195,4891.
13s. 9d. To meet these liabilities, calls had been pail
to the extent of 144,4751. 9s. 9d., leaving a balance of
51,014/. 4s. to be provided for; but this balance in-
cluded a disputed claim of 26,000/. The committee
recommended that the present allowance to the directors
of 800/. per annum should be reduced to 300/. ; the two
auditors salaries from 301. each to 101. ; and that the
secretary's salary be reduced 501. The committee
also suggested that the services of the engineer and
superintendent of traffic in Derry should be dispensed
with. Hitherto the expenses of working the line had
exceeded the receipts, but the committee considered that
194. th care and economy, the line might ultimately be
r aade to pay. There could be no doubt that the extension
of the line from Strabane to Oinagb, or even to Newton-
Stewart, would contribute most materially to develop
the resources of the district; and the committee recom-
mended that-this extension should eventually be taken
into consideration.

Mr. BATES proposed that the report should be
adopted at once; but
The CHAIRMAN considered it was hardly fair that the
directors should be required, on so short a notice, to
adopt the recommendations of the report. and he, there-
fore, moved that the question of passing the report
should be adjourned till a future day.
Eventually it was agreed that the meeting should
stand adjourned till Saturday, the 18th inst.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 9.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before the CHIEF
JusncE and a Common Jury.)
BUSHELL V. WEISS.

Mr. COCK BURN, for the defence, submitted that the
charge of ten guineas per day was most exorbitant, and
that the plaintiff was only entitled to receive the ordi-
nary remuneration given to witnesses when called to give
evidence before the Standing Orders' Committee. He
also submitted that the solicitors were only at liberty to
engage the plaintiff as a witness, and as such he was en-
titled to receive compensation from the defendant, but
they had no authority to make him engineer in chief with-
out the concurrence of the company. The Learned Counsel
then stated that the plaintiff was entitled to no more
than was given to an ordinary surveyor, which was at
the rate of two or three guineas a day.
Mr. Stephens, an engineer, and other witnesses, were
called on the part of the defendant, and stated that the
highest sum paid to surveyors for attending the Railway
Committees, in 1845, was five guineas per day, and
that the usual sum was two guineas per day. He, how-
ever, admitted that an engineer in chief was entitled to
ten guineas.
The CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 851.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 9.
(Before Mr. Under• Sheriff BIRCLIELL.)
PROVI3 V. CULL.

The plaintiff sued as the pnblic•officer of the Wilts and
Dorset Banking Company at Dorchester. Defendant is
a solicitor at the same place. The action was brought to
recover the sum of 961. 4s. sd. for mone) lent and in-
terest.

The defendant allowed judgment to go by default.

Mr. Andrews, solicitor to the company, proved an
admission of the amount due, and the jury gave a ver-
dict for the amount claimed.
BOURNE V. BROAD.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 141.
10s. for the hoard and lodging of defendant's wife, and
for medical attendance, &c.

1
I's. 8,
that the
catio, t, t
banki upt
tvvelvo me

T 6 s ikam
havio g offs
meet" trtg for
sere Iva
rule
3-court,
►ebti to t
not lung of al

Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Hayes ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., and
Mr. Meymott for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case was an engineer, and the
defendant one of the provisional committee of the
Londc.n and Birmingham Extension Railway Com-
pany., which was formed in 1845, for the pur-
pose of constructing a railway from Northamp-
ton, by Daventry, to Warwick, and the action
Weal -brought to recover the sum of 2061. 18s., alleged to
be 'due to him for attending as a witness, to give evidence
be' Fore the Standing Orders' Committee in respect of that
ompany. It appears that the plaintiff who had been
' employed in surveying a portion of the line was sum-
moned to London on the 4th of Marth, 1840, by the so-
licitors to the company, Messrs. Wright and Hanbury,
to give evidence before the Committee in consequence
of some disputes which had grown up between Mr.
Pritchard, the engineer in chief, and the company, the
result of which was, that Nil-. Pritchard declined to come
forward to support the Bill in Parliament. The plain-
tiff was told that he must be prepared to act as engineer
in chief, if Mr. Pritchard continued to persist in his
determinatioa, and he was examined in that capacity o❑
the 30th of March. His charge against the company,
for attending as a witness, was at the rate of ten gui-
neas a day. It was stated by a witness, that Mr.
Pritchard took away the briefs which had been prepared
in support of the Bill, and refused to return them; and
the plaintiff was employed to draw up additional ones,
which it was alleged could not have been prepared
without the plaintiff's assistance.
It was admitted that the defendant was a provisional
committeeman of the company, and that he was liable
for any reasonable sum which the plaintiff might be en-
titled to.

It appeared by the evidence that the plaintiff and his
wife were married in December, 1843. In February
last. Mrs. Broad, who was then residing at Dorking,
was taken ill with a complaint of the liver, and the
plaintiff's wife, who is her aunt, recommended her re-
moval to London for the benefit of medical attendance,
and she was accordingly removed to plaintiff's house,
Churton-street, Pimlico. Dr. Ord was called in, and
attended her till June, when she was pronounced
convalescent. The present demand was for 10s. a week
for board and lodging, and 71. for physician's fees, &c.
For the defendant it was contended that this amounted
to i separation, for defendant's wife had been living with
plaintiff for six months, during which time defendant
never
even went to the house, nor had he ever given
PAY Authority for the separation; therefore, there was no
Case to to the
The -llNsitit-glirY. ettisehmt to
go to
the considered that there was
Evidence was then adduced with a view of showing
that defendant's wife as addicted to drinking, and that
she left the house of
and his on the recommenda-
lion of the plaintiff
mrs.
B.Novuifre, but that defendant said
she: should not, for
ne said she would take
librrictht girl of her, and
Mrs. Broad with her, and „kc,
(defendant).
s %he should be no expense to.
t ;he was not under medic trega.t akiiirliret:adt -Dorking for
beldiert returned
ti ro months previously to leavin
ht ie since. Plaintiff had said she
and was living under the protection a a gentti his
honed
T he UNDER-SHERIFF, in addressing the juermvanak.ia ;
the defendant's wife had left without the assent' - of her
husb and, be was not liable ; but if, on the contrary, he
Lad, ,ssented, he would be respoasible for any necessatie,
supp; ied to her. Her subsequent conduct—supposing it
to Le • true that she was living with another party—did
not b ?al- on the present case.
Th 4 jury, after being locked up, gave a verdict for
Si. 55.. . money oat of pocket.

7OURT OF BANICRUP7'CY, Dec. 9.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE HANDLEY, A BUILDER..
ankrupt came up for his last examination.
irgood, for the assignees, opposed on the ground
accounts were unsatisfactory-, and. on his appit-
he Court adjourned the case, and directed the
to furnish a cash account commencing at least
.nths prinr to the date of the fiat.
:efore Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
BANKRUFTCY OF ROUGEHONT BROTHERS.
krupt, George Rougemont, was a merchant,
yesin Broad-street • buildings. This was a
the choice of assignees.
no opposition, and Mr. R. Glelm, of ller-
Lombard-street, was chosen assignee.
he amount of about 1,5001. werepruved' but
my interest occurred during the meeting.