The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-16 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

Ratted
orrecognised by either of the Abrahams. This
ktes of pleadings and facts was, in his Honour's opinion,
detructive of the plaintiff's case, with respect to the
'er,ltlant Abraham. Whatever the infirmities of Abra-
ttrttle s title might be, the plaintiff must succeed by the
nAtil of his own. His Honour, therefore, was of
gion that he would not be doing justice if he detained
otirtbahltni any longer before the. Court, and accordingly,
thi'e ground of length of time, dismissed the bill as
Col him, with costs. The bill, as against Sir John
whe only appeared in the cause as the surviving
hitee of the marriage settlement, his Honour also dis-
v
„'etl, and with costs, if he (Sir John Colt) so asked,
il!:.‘_without prejudice
.to. .a new bill being filed against.
if the plaintiff chciie. to do so. That liberty was
lillowerer, to apply in the case of Abraham. Against
dual Way,
Mrs. Colt the plaintiff might proceed in the
Way, if there was any difference between them.
(Before Vice-Phancellor WIORAM.)
111.1.• ROBERTS v. WILLIAMS.
piii„ bids cause, his Honour gave his judgment for 'tieth—tifr, according to the payment of the bill. Teserving
e question of costs.

This RAINE V. CAINES.
tt 4., part-heardwas resumed, and the ar„eut:
Tdconcluded. His' Honour postponed his judgmen
4Court rose shortly after three.
titt BENCH.—(THIS DA. Y.)
_-.I:TX/-411AM AND GREAT :WESTERN UNION RAIL-
WAY COMPANY V. DANIELS.
of 102 i WaS an action of debt to recover the several sums
141,, • 45., 101/. 7s. 3d., and 1501. 7s. 10d., being the
teii4,:lut of three several calls upon 20 shares alleged to
for d by the defendant as one of the prtprietors of the
ed Railway Company. The defendant pleaded
pr,, ,N% as not indebted ; and secondly, that he was not
kOneter of the Comptpiy. The case was tried before
ter 'estice Williams aeth'e sittings of the last Hilary
11
'1 and a verdict had Air the plaintiffs for 3601. Bs. 6d.,
the fe,,tg the opinion of .the Court of Queen's Bench on
att ^lng special case. On the 21st June, 1836,
raiiet was passed authorising the formation of
qNtwaY from Chelteu
hain and Gloucester to join the
it% (It western Railway at Swindon. Prior to the pass-
tid•Jhe
21. Act, the parties subscribing signed the deed,
nettlos. pfir share, and scrip certificates were
xett,t''',lach of the subscribers. The defendant never
wa~t or sabarzibed the Parliamentary deed. A notice
llottl:ed to the scrip certificates stating that they were
Paledesferable, but notwithstanding this the certificates
~(1 from hand to hand, so that at the time the Act pass-
11144them in the h
te,e, er of were
,116ieh ts,lned the agreement. The 20 shares for
14" e defendant was sued were taken originally
I:lllititer 13rT rington and Sir Richard Wolsley. The
t,'ney h],"ree9 d letters from these parties, stating that
ra" t' anseferred teir shares, and on the 16th of
411, t,e,-;7':;1836, they received a letter from the dFfen-
ilocl,ffied J. Denis Daniels, of Kingsland-place, Kings-
ttfertt qddleßex claiming tp be registered in right of those
1114,1,„shares. and enclosing the scrip certificates. The
kit`tig4 replied acknowledging the receipt of the scrip,
thecilting that the certificates would he delivered on
difi:rndant completing the register. The name of the
4„pr,„•
_,44t, was entered on the books of the Company, as
(;44-vpanctor of these twenty shares, and the seal of the
'ttt to 111 affixed in the usual way. When the first call
I,`qt e the defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiffs
I,lYt4,,sgal proceedings, which were stayed on the
ens of the amount of the call with costs.
Itc4,-,reoder.t also paid the 2d and 3d calls as they be-
"peo,',ll°% and the calls for which the present action was
'l4G' 'were the 4th and sth, due 21st March and 31st
Ota.,, 1839, respectively. No transfer of the shares
thee, and the question for the Court was, whether
„kt; tune the 4th and sth calls were made, the defend-
%NlLS proprietor of 20 shares in the Company within
j,kreolutioLt of the Act of Parliament.
fl`rit,;l,'-'llEssweLr, on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted
lee't,'"e decisions whichi had been recently made in the
kt,eetlner Court in similar cases, were applicable to the
11Pittll„Cand must decide it. It was there held that where
4%1,7 °ad done any act which would induce the Corn-
Nidto treat him as a proprietor, he was bound by it, and
44t,cot afterwards deny that he was a shareholder.
I!'tiv,yiettrd by the present case that the defendant re-
ttlettle Company to register him as a proprietor of
Nt,„,,"
"eclaares, and they did so at his request. It ap-
further, that he paid the first three calls of 5/.
ii'14411,1 then he took it into his head to deny that he
714e,,i3roPrietor. NoW the decisions to which he had
4/I,,``' expressed decidedly that he could not do that.
~ktitts°ll after having taken shares and applied to be re-
t'llhti-ert'l as a proprietor, could not afterwards fall back
-;:tee and, subtle reasoning as to the construction of
-IkAt"" Now the .108th section enacted that the
IttibQ,:irs were to cause the names of the several sub-
-4114:10 to be regularly entered in a book, with the
te: 01 shares to each, and to affix their common sea
;,111)% a and they were to deliver certificates to each of the
74.tr,..yers on demand. In the present case it appeared
vittv•Z such demand had ever been made upon the Corn-
the'r'e Ilut having been entered at his own request upon
fltetgts rhe was entitled to be considered a proprietor.
Prtoi'ine demanded a certificate or not. The latter
at,- too clause showed the object for which the certi-
ltth„w,a,s granted, namely, that in all the Courts of lLaw
the taken as prima facie evidence of the tit of
'i4cti;elri"nor to such shares, but the want of such
tf his
s sh)„,A
not him from selling or
ot,res,The hinder disposingcases to which the present was analo-
-14: wer' " the Sheffield, Ashton, under-Line, and
livbc-ester Railway V. Woodcock," the Grand June-
Itt''4iirray. v. Freeman," and their Lordships would see
; '
thesecases all the objections which could be
ata;.nst the title of, the defendant to he con-
4tic. proprietor had been discussed and decided.
keilt`r; th ese eiretunstances he submitted that the judg-
41.°' the Court must be for the plaintiffs.
441; PEACOCK for the defendant contended that the
r of the shares could not be legally made until
4111 tof Parliament kad been obtained. Independently
by the fifth section, those persons only were to
kNl:.gidered proprietors who had signed the Parlia-
clA,
_t"," contract, and that had not been done by the
IVal 'glom—the names of Dr. Borrington and Sir Richard
bs'e.3., Were those to whom the shares were set down,
11)te-litil the defendant had been required and had signed
ttlir °tltract, the plaintiffs could not take him in lieu of the
tht,:k's and consider him a proprietor. He submitted,
tl.4,„e', cre that the circumstance of his having sent in a
1/1"` to be registered would not render him liable for
14,,5e calls. If it appeared that he had participated in
V),Pkrofits, or that the Company had been injured in any
4c1'31 his act, then liability would attach, but as the
eltt Present stood the transfer could not be said to
hti„gally effected, and the defendant was entitled to the
tenant of the Court.
411)Esxart said it was impossible to forget the fact
lee whatever the Act of Parliament required, the de•
'maul had held out false colours to induce the
lltlivrtY to register him as a proprietor, and the
144,`"5al rule of law must apply by which where a party
!111N,2 a certain representation on which others are in
,114 "" to act, he is bound by that representation. The
,Itterit of the Court, therefore, must be for the plaintiffs.
14,1,!eit:ttic: LT EN HAM RAILWAY COMPANY V. MEDINA.
.
4411 ,Point of objection raised in this case being the
epikintiCffso.urt also pronounced judgment in favour of

I,42CCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
riLsoN AND ANOTHER V. HAEFORD AND ANOTHER. h
17 j; was an action to recover damages for the bree.tc
"t%t,riiatent right for the making of pipes for conveying
;'l%,' air on a new principle. 4 was tried before Baron
ale i' and occupied the time of the Jury three days. A
'°illt,.;',ll‘ a new trial was obtained last term, and was ap-
c)teit to be argued to-day. The reading of the Judges
ter wards of three hours.
el' the re upwards of three hours.
ftlie reading of the Report,
butAniNGER (the other Judges concurring) said, he
Nci; &ot how the verdict could be disturbed—the
-1,11:! Was all one way.
ouLlciTOR-GENERAL did not think it would he-
ft h ,
•
`t h“ after such an intimation, to take up the time
la the Lourt in supporting the verdict.
tai t Av,l,:re'RNEr-GENERAL addressed the Court at some
hie Zt, finding the Court decidedly against him, he
dip n, and.';',uld not struggle against their Lordship's opi-
rale for a new trial was discharged.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

(THIS DAY.)

STARBRIDGE V. ROSSETTI.
t•ltittre-0.-041:vetttltstn:
tri
teSLCov
itrdieeilacitero. reeevoenver damages for the breach
for the plaintiff it ap •
twtieti that a lease of • certain premises in Short's-
IltMttlB4, was granted in 1820 fr thirty-one ye ars;
NI the usual covenant to repaior. In 1831 the de-
aiac. became the assignee of the lease of the pre.
Icoarla question, where he carried on the business o
1140-builder. In 1839 the landlord had the pre.
Y'ery- Surveyed, and they were found to be in . a
~14'Na bad state. A specification of the repairs
,;(11V,-arY was made out, and notice to repair ahce-
"i-,F to the covenants of the lease, served upon t
;try. s'atit. He had some repairs done, but they were
4eltlirilling, compared to what were necessary. On
IlecEs".rerannstrated with he said he had done
_all that was
wens sar3r, and would do no mo-e. The plaintiff's survey or
*hic.,i°ver the premises, and his estimate of the repairs
Ile 14.1 were necessary amounted to 1401., for which sum
FO;11FIlt his action.
Rho,t'le defendant a surveyor and builder was called.
it 4 p'r,eP(sed that' frre. months ago ho went over
'II raises in question, and offered to put them
ti°aeraPlete state of repair according to the specifics-
Ishow,".rjed upon the defendant for 501. He was not
he`"e covenants of the lease.
:11:
60:Li:after a short deliberation, split the differ-
etainteween the parties, and gave a verdict for the
Sol. damages.
'be:i.'tt conducted the case for the plaintiff. Mr.
was Council for the defendant.

1/4114 COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
, BENSON V. GRAVES.
Lorne —A.LLER applied for a rule, calling upon the at-
inZ fr'r the plaintiff to show cause why all proceed-
alioi-u this action should not be stayed, and why they
14ot Pay the costs which bad been incurred, and
It -e costs of the present application.
hitt,aPPear,,d that the plaintiff; who was n widor 69
u
,
(-)1 u; age, had some years ago deposited in the lans
"bilitfendant, a gentleman of wealth and respecta
Y, certain deeds and other documents, includig.; herd
41
:rB.ll' for custody, She had subsequently ha
lleets Ytic stroke, which had impaired. her in-
and one James Benson,
1r0n.,-,7, had assisted her in the management of hert
a relative of her
suit Y. The attorneys for the plaintiff in the presedn
felid aq applied on behalf of James Benson to the
refuse
to ..ve
ati up the documents to him; defendant had.
deto —4, conceiving that James Benson had no authority
bru,ll,end them. In consequence this action had been
Zp el'"t• befendant had sen plaintiff, and had offered
"Itle 11P the documents to James Benson, it' she were