The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-12 00:00:00

DALY V. THOMSON.

The LORD CHIEF BARON read over the notes taken by
him upon the trial of this case, from which it appeared
that the action was brought against the Secretary of the
Anti-Dry-Rot Company, for not registering the defen-
dant as the proprietor of 20 shares, of which he had
purchased the scrip certificates. The Company was to
have a capital of 250,0001., divided into 10,000
shares, which the Directors were obliged to re-
gister in a book kept for the purpose. It ap-
peared that there was a Director named Ferry, who
in fraud of the Company re-issued a vast number of the
scrip certificates after they had been registered, and after
the register was full. Upon the fraud being found out,
Ferry absconded, and it had an immediate effect upon the
market ; from 13/. 10s. the shares fell to 31. 10s. The
defendant bought the shares at the latter price; and after
full notice of the fraud had been given, and brought to
his notice, when he went to the office, the defendant
informed him that the register was full. He therefore
brought his action for the refusal to register the shares he
held. At the trial his Lordship thought the plaintiff
could not maintain his action, and directed him to be
nonsuited.

Mr. ERLE in the early part of the Term obtained a rule
nisi to set the nonsuit aside.

Cause against thaurule was now shown by Mr. KELLY
and Mr. BYLEs. They relied on the Act of Parliament,
which constituted the count, by the provisions of which
the Directors were bound to enter and register 10,000
shares and no more ; this they had done, and they had
no power to do more. The plaintiff had evidently in-
tended to take advantage
.of the fraud of Ferry, for he
was aware of it ; he knew before he purchased that the
register was full, and if the plaintiff had any remedy
at all, he had misconceived it by bringing his action
against the Secretary for not registering. Probably he
might maintain his action against the Directors, whose
names wore appended to the certificates, for the fraudu-
lent re-issue of the shares, but under the circumstances
they submitted that the nonsuit was right, and ought
to stand. _ _

Baron RoLFE—Suppose a person had purchased ten
shares on the day after the passing of the Act, and neg-
lected to register them until the 10,000 were filled up,
would he have no remedy ?
Mr. KELLY could not go that length ; he had assumed
that the 10,000 shares had been properly registered. In
,this case, it was to be borne in mind that the plaintiff
hhd bought after notice of the fraud, and at a low price
in conseqminco of it.
Baron PARKE—Was it not the duty of the defendant
to show :hat the plaintiff had no right to register upon
the certificate he held ?
Mr. KELLV. hoped that would not be laid down as
law ; for how would it be possible for the defendant to
call the owners of the 10,000 shares, and that would be
the only way the defendant could show that fact. He
would raise another point which, if ho was driven to it,
must, he thought, ho decisive against the plaintiff—he had
not proved his title. He denied that a title was conferred
by the mere passing from hand to hand of the certificate,
which for such a purpbse was a mere piece of waste
paper. It was not proved that any writing passed at the
purchase of the scrip, therefore there had been no legal
transfer of the shares.
The COURT said it had been decided in the Exchequer
Chamber, in the case of a Railroad Company, that certi-
ficates in a public Company passing from hand to hand
conferred a title.
Mr. KELLY could not properly meet the point, because
the case referred to had not yet been reported, but he
would be astonished to hear that their Lordships had
laid down a rule that an interest in land might pass
instrument.
Mr. a written
Mr. WATSON, in support of the rule, con-
tended that both according to the Act of Parlia-
ment and many decided cases, the plaintiff had
saecriqupi.redTahecommpereetencithetsittlieohbyhetfhhere mtehreecthruain:tsfwe,rasofuptl(ime
gttiisatterthewteerne
,btvhohnhoahms a
fint the us
no
man h
aue sme
sbpe rrosebl altnoe drf
ei
dtl ye
or not. It
i toicf
mPt hrpoesvni
ynlgt e
was clear that it. was for them to prove that the plaintiff
had no claim to be registered, because he made out a
prima facie case, by producing a certificate signed
by three of the Directors of the Company, appointed
by the Act of Parliament. If any negligence had been
committed, it was by the defendants themselves, and
therefore it was for them to show that the 10,000 names
they had chosen to enter in their book had a right to
be there.
The COURT said the case was one of some difficulty
and of much importance as the Company might be entirely
ruined by an adverse decision, they would take time to
consider their judgment.
The Court rose early, in order that preparation might
be made for the nomination of Sheriffs.
This being what is called the morrow of St. Mar-
tin, a Privy Council was held in the Court, for
the purpose of settling the names of gentle-
men to be returned to fill up the roll fin*
Sheriff. Soon after two o'clock the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharncliffe
(Lord President), Lord Denman, Lord Abinger, Chief
Justice Tindal, Sir James Graham, Sir E. Knatch-
bull, and Baron Parke took their seats on the
bench ; the other Judges sat below. The Judges

who went the respective Circuits gave in names to
fill up the roll. The objections were not numerous, and
none of a peculiar nature.

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY.)
NICHOLLS V. LORD HUNTINGTOWER---PRICE V. THE

SAME.

Mr. HUMFREY moved fora rule to show cause ; why
the attorney for the defendant in both the above causes,
should not be changed, on the costs due to him being
paid. It appeared from the affidavits that Lord Hunting-
tower had been taken in execution for debts amounting
to between 3,000/. and 4,000/. His Lordship swore that of
the existence of these debts he had no knowledge what-
ever, and he imputed collusion to his own attorney and
the attorney for the plaintiffs. A motion somewhat
analogous to the present one had been made in the other
Court on a former day, a report of which had appeared
in the newspapers. Lord Huntingtower had since
received a letter from the gentleman who had
acted as his attorney, stating that having read
the report in the Times he was desirous that a termina-
tion should be put to their relative positions as attorney
and client. The defendant swore that lie had had no in-
timation whatever that any proceedings had been taken
against him until the execution had been served upon
him, and that he had never given any authority to the
gentleman officiating as jiffs attorney in the causes to act,
and he further stated his belief that the gentleman iu
question was indebted to him in a considerable sum of
money. He (Mr. Ilumfrey), on behalf of the defendant,
had therefore to apply that the name of Mr. Footner
might be substituted for that of the gentleman at present
claiming to act for the defendant, and that leave might
be given to the defendant to plead de novo.—Rule granted.
Mr. Justice PATTESON having gone through the bar,
and having waited a considerable time, asked if any gen-
tleman had anything to move, when, receiving no answer,
his Lordship rose shortly after eleven o'clock. After the
lapse of a quarter of an hour; several Counsel came run-
ning into 'Court, and asked the Master if Mr. Justice Patte-
son was gone. A message was sent to his Lordship, who
kindly consented to return to the Court. It is, however,
much to be desired that Counsel would be more punctual
in their attendance, and not waste the time of.the Court
by useless delays.
EXPARTE JOHN BRIGHTMAN, IN THE MATTER OF AN:AT-
TORNEY OF THIS COURT ; EXPARTE CHARLES BURGIN,
IN THE MATTER OF THE SAME ATTORNEY. _ ,

Mr. PASRLEY applied to the Court for a rule absolute
for an attachment against an attorney of this Court, for
non-payment of a sum of money ordered by him to be paid
.to the applicant. It appeared that the wife of Mr. Bright-
man had, before her marriage, employed the attorney in
question as her professional adviser, and that he had
represented to her that a Mr. Herring was desirous of
borrowing 2001. on mortgage, with which sum she had
entrusted the attorney, for the purpose of paying over
the same to Herring. For some time the interest was
regularly paid. At length suspicion was aroused, from
the fact of the mortgage deeds not being forthcoming.
Inquiries were made of Herring, and it was discovered
that he had never received any money, nor had he ever
applied to the attorney to raise money by mortgage.
On discovering this, application was made to the Court
for a rule, calling on the attorney to show cause why he
should not pay over the money in question to Mr. Bright-
man, which rule was eventually made absolute. Under
these circumstances, he applied for a rule absolute at
once. In the case of Mr. Burgin, the attorney acting for
that gentleman had received a sum of money,
for the purpose of paying the same over
to a person to whom Mr. Burgin was indebted. He told
Mr. Burgin he had done so, and when subsequently Mr.
Burgin was served with a writ to recover the amount,
the attorney said he would pay the money, and would
indemnify him. Mr. Burgin then applied to another at-
torney. Application was made to this Court for a rule,
as in the former instance, which was also made absolute.
The day before execution was to be levied, a fiat in bank-
ruptcy was sued out against the attorney by his under
agent. Under these circumstances, he applied for a rule
absolute for an attachment, and for a rule nisi, calling
on the attorney to show cause why his name should not
be struck off the rolls.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take the two rules in both
cases.

THE QUEEN V. CALDECOTT AND WYRE.
In this case, which was tried at the last Staffordshire
Assizes, the defendant had been convicted of a libel.
Subsequently a side bar rule had been obtained, calling
upon the defendant to pay. the costs. Now it appeared
that the prosecutor in such cases could not call upon the
defendants to pay costs unless he were personally ag-
grieved. In the present case, the libel consisted in an
account given of a Conservative dinner at Bilston, over
which Lord Ingestre had presided. His Lordship, how-
ever, had nothing to do with the prosecution, which had
been instituted by a local Conservative Associatioit
Under these circumstances the plaintiffs were not en-
titled to costs, and therefore he moved for a rule nisi to
set aside the side bar rule.—Application granted.
THE EASTERN COUNTIES' RAILWAY V. COOK.-THE SAME

v. FAIRCLOTH.

Mr. Sergeant SHEA moved for a rule to show cause
why a mistake which had occurred in drawing up a rule
in the above cases should not be corrected. Mr. Justice
Littledale had granted the defendants leave to place a
variety of pleas upon the record, but on application being
made to the Court the only pleas allowed to stand were
the lst,2d, and4th. In drawing up the rule, however, sc me
mistake had arisen in consequence of some discrepancy
in the endorsements on the briefs. To remedy this was
the object of the present application.—Rule nisi granted.
In addition to the above cases the following gentle-
men made applications to the Court after Mr. Justice
Matteson had returned and taken his seat upon the bench
a second time—Mr. Platt, Mr. Chadwick Jones, and Mr.
Williams.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied the greater part of the mcrn-
ing in hearing special cases of demurrer of no popular
interest.

This was an action for false imprisonment, under these
circumstances:—A boy, alleged to have been sent by the
plaintiff, applied to defendant at the bank of Cox and
Co. for a blank cheque-book in the name of a customer.
Defendant suspecting frand, followed the boy into the
street, and saw him give the book to the plaintiff, whom
he immediately gave into custody. The Magistrates
ultimately discharged the plaintiff not considering the
fraudulent intention to be proved. For the arrest and
detention this action was brought.
. . .

The defendant pleaded justification; under the statute,
alleging that the plaintiff was about to commit an in-
dictable offence.

The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the arguments
upon the demurrer came on this day, Mr. Sergeant
Talfourd for the plaintiff, and Mr. Channell for the dt-
fendant. But the Court decided for the plaintiff, and
admitted the demurrer.