The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-22 00:00:00

COMPANY.

This was a meeting for passing the last examination
of the gentlemen who were appointed to make out the
balance-sheet.
Mr. RICHARDSON, for a shareholder, observed, that he
held the Bill presented by this company to Parliament,
and by that Bill it appeared that there were five
directors, who were to receive five shares each, and there
was no mention of that circumstance in the balance-sheet,
upon which they now sought to pass their last exami-
nation.

Mr. E. JAMES, for the directors, said that they must
receive five shares each, in order to qualify them, and in
the present case the deposits upon them were never paid,
but, however, it did not affect the balance—that was the
best the bankrupts could give.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD--Yes, but it may not be
satisfactory to the Court.
Mr. IttenannsoN submitted that there ought to be an
adjournment of the case, in order to enable the share-
holders to make further inquiry.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD refused to grant the ad-
journment.

Mr. JAMES remarked that in point of fact this gentle-
man was a bankrupt, instead of a creditor.
Mr. DUNCAN interposed by stating that this client (Mr.
Atkinson) was a creditor who had proved his debt, and
would ask the bankrupts a few questions.
Mr. LAWRANCE, for the assignees, must object to Mr.
Duncan being heard, on the ground tbat his client had re-
ceived 20s. in the pound, and 4 per cent. interest.
Mr. DuticAN replied that there was a small balance
due to Mr. Atkinson by the bankrupts, which was unpaid.
Thellon.F. IL Berkeley (one of the bankrupts) wished
to state that with respect to the five shares before al-
luded to, the deposits upon them were never paid, and
therefore the balance-sheet was correct.

Mr. Everill, solicitor to the company, corroborated
;his statement.

Mr. OGLE then rose to address the Court on behalf of
a scripholder, when
Mr. LAWRANCE objected, that a scripholder had no
locus .standi in this court to oppose.
Mr. OGLE having referred to the cases of Wralstab v.
Spottiswoode, and Wontner v. Sharp, referring to the
arguments there used, submitted that he had a right to
be heard. _

Mr. LAWRANCE observed that if the Learned Counsel
was in a position to prove, he might be heard, because
he was either a creditor or a bankrupt.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD could not allow Mr.
Ogle to be heard.
Mr. LAWRANCE stated that it was intended to super-
sede this fiat. All the creditors would receive 20s. in
the pound, and it was highly necessary to look into the
proofs, because this case must be dealt with as all other
bankruptcy cases.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD—Certainly.
The Hon. F. 11. Berkeley was then examined, and
stated that he was Member for Bristol, and had become
a director of the Tring Railway, but upon whose request
he could not now charge his memory. He had not re-
ceiv ed anything from the company from first to last.
Ile never had an allotment of shares, but had received
money from the company for his services as director and •
chairman, although he had not attended so punctually as
he ought, and upon the retirement of the former chair-
man, he (Mr. Berkeley) was completely thrust into the
situation, notwithstanding that he had previously refused
it. He was not aware of the amourt he had received for
his services, but, however, it was small.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee, stated it to be
65/. 2s.
Examination continued—The company had capital
sufficient for a small portion of the scheme, which they
went to Parliament upon. It was a bona fide line, re-
ceiving the approbation of the landowners. After the
Bill was committed, Mr. Duncombe's resolution respect-
ing railways was passed, which gave a right to the share-
holders to atop the company before going to the Com-
mittee, and they directed that the Bill should be drawn,
and it was done so. The result was, the bankrupt ap-
peared at this court. The balance-sheet now before the
Court was the best which could be rendered, and he had
no notion of concealment or keeping anything back.
Mr. GRAHAM stated that there appeared by the ba-
lance- sheet to have been 200 shares allotted to Mr.
Berkeley.
Examination resumed—Most certainly not upon his
application, and he was never informed that any such
allotment had taken place. He had never traded or sold
any shares, although he had had ample opportunity, be-
cause shares were at a premium.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD—Did you know that
these shares were allotted to you ? The Hon. F. H.
Berkeley—No, sir, I did not.
' Mr. JAMES—Have you been in communication with
the official assignee ? Tho Hon. F. H. Berkeley—Yes.
' Mr. JAMES—Have you given up all the papers, and
made the best account:of the company's affairs you can?
The Hon. F. 11. Berkeley— Yes, to the best of my
knowledge.
Mr. GRAHAM then referred to a memorandum in the
balance-sheet respecting the allocation of 875 shares.
They were placed in the hands of Messrs. Hill and
Everill.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD—And there are only
490 shares accounted for ?

Mr. GRAPIAM—Messrs.II and Everill were cre-
ditors to the company, and have a large claim. They
ought to debit themselves with the deposits on 385
shares, being the difference between the 490 paid on and
the 875 allotted.
Mr. JAMES stated the shares alluded to were never
accepted, and were now in court.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD—Were they not ac-
cepted so as to make a person liable ?
Mr. JAMES—No, sir.

Mr. COOKE, for Mr. Saunders, then tendered a proof
for upwards of 1,0001., which was admitted.
Mr. DUNCAN wished to state that he had not the
slightest objection to the Hon. F. 11. Berkeley.
After some further discussion,
The bankrupts passed their last examination.