The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-25 00:00:00

er btrb 12btttou

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock

READING, GUILDFORD, AND
REIGATE COMPANY.—(THIS DAY.)
A general meeting of this company was held to-day at
the London Tavern, at one o'clock. Salomon, Esq., in
the chair.
The CHAIaMAY stated, that the object of the meeting was
to decide upon the course to be pursued with respect to the
negotiation now pendingwith the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany. The latter company some time since made a proposi-
tion to purchase the right to make the Reading, Guildford, and
Reigate Company, giving a rental of five and half per cent.
on the capital of 600,0001. Much correspondence had arisen
upon this proposition, the chief object of which was to secure
for the South -Eastern Company the right to operate on the
ground south of Dorking. This proposition was met by the
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Company by a series of
resolutions, the object of which was to obtain 4% per cent.
rental and equal profits afterwards—this to be commuted into
a perpetual rent of 51?), per cent. on all the capital expended
when the line is completed. The meeting had to decide
whether the company should persist in their own demands or
allow the proposal of the South-Eastern Company to rule the
deed of agreement.

Mr. SITALE explained that the company's proposition, if
accepted by the South-Eastern, would act unfairly, inasmuch
as it would probably give as much as 8 per cent. to those
who had bought their shares at a discount.
Mr. I/LAMBERT said that be would rather take a small but
certain return from a valid company, like the:South-Eastern
Company, than endeavour to obtain 41, per cent., and profits
beside, when the profits might never be realised. They ought
to keep faith with the South-Eastern Company.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Directors had endeavoured
to keep good faith with the South-Eastern Board, although
other offers were open to them.
A conversation ensued, in which Mr. Mangles, the chair-
man, and Mr. Mawbert took part, the object of which was to
show that the directors had been guilty of no negligence in
not having sooner brought the negotiation to a conclu-
sion. Mr. Mangles observed that the cession of the line
between Dorking and Reigate would greatly impair the
value of the line, for it was intended by the South-Western
Company to construct a line from London-bridge, to run on
the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate line by Wokingham to
Reading, and thus make it the chief route of communication
to the west of England for the goods and passengers who
-would come to London-bridge.
Mr. KNIGHT thought that the better plan would be to take
the offer of the South-Eastern Company.
The CHAIUMAN stated that it was owing to the inatten-
tion of the South-Eastern Company, in the first instance,
that the negotiation had not been sooner concluded. The
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Company stood in the pecu-
liar position of having the whole of their 40,000 shares re-
gistered without compulsion in a single instance.
Mr. BLAKE thought that the proposition of the directors
ought to be accepted or declined by the South-Eastern Com-
pany, within a certain time, and that this should be put as
an ultimatum.

The CHAIRMAN stated that all the directors desired was
the confidence of the shareholders, and they would carry out
the resolution satisfactorily. After some further conversa-
tion, he put it to the meeting, and while the show of hands
was being taken
Mr. MAwBERT rose to move an amendment; which, after
much dispute, was put to the meeting and lost.
The original resolution, that the directors be empowered
to act upon their own resolutions, was then carried, and the
meeting separated.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE PENDER.

The arguments in this case having concluded to-day,
His LenDSIIII' delivered judgment. This was a case
in which certain items of a solicitor's bill had been
disallowed by the Master. In considering one of the
items, which related to the putting in of an answer, the
Master had proceeded upon the notion that it would have
been of no use to the client. He thought, looking at all the
circumstances, that that was a master which admitted of no
small donbt. With respect to some briefs, which had also
been disallowed by the Master, he had heard nothing to show
that the Master had acted erroneously, and he was therefore
bound to confirm his report in this particular. One
of the items was for briefs alleged to have been
drawn out, and certainly they appeared to be important
to the client's case, but as no copies of them had been fur-
nished to the Court, he could not act upon his views with
respect to this item. The only remaining item was for
office copies that had been furnished in a cross
suit, and in this case it appeared that they were
necessary to enable the suit to be prosecuted. He would
take time to look into the affidavits before he decided with
reference to these particular items.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN, AT THE INSTANCE OF HUMPHREY, V. THE DEAN

AND CHAPTER OF CHESTER..
In this case, Sir F. THESIGER, with whom was Mr. Ter.
ritt, showed cause why a mandamus sheuld not issue, com-
manding the defendants to restore plaintiff to his office as
chorister in the cathedral of Chester. In September, 1845,
plaintiff had been dismissed from his office on the
ground of his voice being defective and not of suffi-
cient compass for the cathedral, while at the same
time, in - the words of the Learned Counsel, though
he had an exceedingly bad voice, he had an exceedingly
good character. The Learned Counsel contended, first, that
he had never been regularly appointed and installed in the
°flies of" chorister," he having been a " conduct," or singing
man of the cathedral, and not a" chorister," or singing boy,
distinctions made by the statute of Henry the Eighth, under
which the offices of the cathedral were founded. Secondly,
that he had never been regularly appointed to the office of
" conduct," which he did hold, and therefore could not be
restored to an office which he never held. Thirdly, that
the Dean and Chapter were not the parties against whom pro-
ceedings should be taken, the Bishop ofChester, as" visitor" of
the cathedral, being the responsible party in such cases. On
these considerations, as well as on the ground that he held
the office "eclum bene cantaverit," and not " dum bene
gesserit," the rule ought to be discharged.
Mr. Him (with whom was Mr. Welsh) replied. He de-
ri;ed the allegation that plaintiff did not fill the office to which
be claimed to be restored, and read a number of affida-
vits in support of his client's claim. It wa,, not at-
tempted to be shown that plaintiff was guilty of any
criminal misconduct, which was the only cause of dismissal
specified in the statute. With regard to submitting the com-
plaint to the " Tisitor," he maintained that the latter had no
jurisdiction, and after referring to some cases of an analogous
nature, called upon the Court to make the rule absolute.
The COURT would take time to consider.

PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner SMITH, and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner Faux.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
OPPOSED LIST.
THE CALEDONIAN AND GLASGOW (PAISLEY AND
GREENOCK) RAILWAY COMPANY.
This petition was successfully opposed by Mr. Pritt on be-
half of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Company.
GLASGOW, KILMARNOCK, AND ARDROSSAN
RAILWAY,
Amendment Deviations] and Branches to Beith, Fenwick,
Kilmarnock, Waterside, and West Colliery to the Berskip
Mineral Railway, to the Ardrossan Branch of the Glasgow,
Kilmarnock. and Ardrossan Railway, and to the Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and Cumnock and
Irvine Branches thereof. Length 26 miles ; estimate 410,000/.
The customary formal proofs having been adduced in this
case, the further hearing was adjourned till to-morrow.
(Room 23, before Mr. Examiner MAY and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner GUNNELL.)
ADJOURNED OPPOSED CASES.
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY EXTENSION
(CREDITON TO LAUNCESTON).
This opposed case was then resumed. It was strongly op-
posed by the South-Western interest, and occupied the re-
mainder of the day. In the course of the inquiry several
important allegations were sustained, impugning the accu-
racy of the plans and sections, and showing the levels to be
miscalculated.
The case was further adjourned.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Theioan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

POOR-LAW.
The Earl of STRADBROKE presented a petition from
to. place in Suffolk praying for an alteration in the law
.of settlement.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition from
the poor-law guardians of Leeds, in Yorkshire, praying
for an alteration in the Poor Removal Act passed last
session.