The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-17 00:00:00

RHINE V. CAINE&

This part• heard cause was resumed, and the argu-
ments concluded. His Honour postponed his judgment.
The Court rose shortly after three.

COURT

IF QUErYS BENCH, Nov. 16.

.
THE CIIIMTENIIAN AMU GREAT .WESTERN UNION BAIL'

WAY COMPANY V. DANIELS.
• This was an action of debt to recover the several sums
of 1021. 45., 1011. 7s. 3d., and 1501. 7s. 10d., being the
amount of three several calls upon 20 shares alleged to
be held by the defendant as one of the proprietors of the
above named Rsilway
Company. The defendant pleaded
that he was not indebted ; and secondly, that he was nst
a proprietor of the Comfst.s. she case was tried before
Mr. Justice Williams, at 'S.-alttirigs of the Last Hilary
term, and a verdict had for the plaintiffs for 36e1. ss. 61,
subject to the opinian of the Court of Queen's Bench on
the, following special case. On the 21st June, 1836,
an Act was passed authorising the ' formation of
a railway from Cheltenham and Gloucester to join the
Great Western Railway at Swindon. Prior to the pass-
ing of the Act, the parties subscribing signed the deed,
and paid 2/. 10s. per share, and scrip certificates were
given to each of the subscribers. The defendant never
executed or subscribed the Parliamentary deed. A notice
was affixed to the scrip certificates stating that they were
not transferable, but notwithstanding this the certificates
passed from hand to hand, so that at the time the Act pass-
ed a number of them were in the hands of parties who had
never :signed the agreement. The 20 shares for
which the defendant was sued were taken originally ,
by Doctor Borrington and Sir Richard Wolsliy. The
plantiffs received letters from these parties, stating that
they had transferred their shares, and on the 16th of
December, 1836, they received a letter from the defen-
dant, signed J. Denis Daniels, of Kingsland-place, Kings-
land, Middlesex, claiming to be registered in right of those
twenty shares, and enclosing the scrip certificates. The
plaintiffs replied acknowledging the receipt of the scrip,
and stating that the certificates would be delivered on
the defendant completing the register. The name of the
defendant was entered on the books of the Company. as
a proprietor of these twenty shares, and the seal of the
Company affixed in the usual way. When the first call
was made the defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiffs
took legal proceedings, which were stayed on the
ayment of the amount of the call with costs.
The defendant also paid the 2d and 3d calls as they be-
came due, and the calls for which the present action was
brought, were the 4th and sth, due 21st March and 31st
August, 1839, respectively. No transfer of the shares
was made, and the question for the Court was, whether
at the time. the 4th and sth calls were made, the defend-
ant was a proprietor of 20 shares in the Company within
the meaning of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. CRESSWELL, on behalf of the plaintiffs; submitted
that the decisions which had been recently made in the
Exchequer Court in similar cases, were applicable to the
present, and must decide it. It was there hold that'where
a party had done any act which would induce the Com-
pany to treat him as a proprietor, he was bound by it, and
could not afterwards deny that he was a shareholder.
It appeared' by the present case that ~the defendant re-
quested the Company to register him' as a proprietor- of
certain shares, and they did so at his request. It ap-
peared further, that he paid the. first three calls of 51.
each, and then he took it into his head to deny that he •
was a proprietor. Now the decisions to which he had
alluded expressed decidedly that he could' not do that:
A person after having taken shares and applied to be re-
gistered as a proprietor, could not afterwards fall back
upon nice and subtle reasoning as to the construction of
the Act. Now the 108th section enacted that the
Directors were to cause the names of the several sub-
scribers to be regularly entered in a book, with the
number of shares to each, and to affix their common seal
thereto, and they were to deliver certificates to each of the
subscribers on demand. In the present ease it appeared,
that no such. demand had ever been made upon the Com-
! pany, but having been entered at his own request upon
the he was entitled to be considered a proprietor
whether he demanded a certificate or not. The latter
part of the clause-showed the object fur which the certi-
ficate was granted, namely, that in all the 'Courts of Law
it should be taken as prima facie evidence of the title of
'the proprietor to such shares, but the want of such cer-
tificate should not hinder him from selling, or disposing
.of his shares. The cases to which the present was analo-
gous were " the Sheffield,. Ashton under-Line, and
Manchester.itailway v. Woodeack,"'" the Grand June,
tion Rail gay. v. Freeman," and their Lordships would see
that in these cases all the objections which could be
urged against the title of the defendant to be con-
sidered a proprietor had been discussed and decided.
Under these circumstances he submitted that the judg-
ment of the Court must be for the plaintiffs.
Mr. PEACOCK for the defendant contended that the
transfer of the shares .could not be legally made until
the Act of Parliament kad been obtained. Indepndently
of that, by the fifth section, those persons only were to
be considered .proprietors who had signed the Parlia-
mentary contract, and that had not been. done by the
defendant—the names of 1)r. Borrington and Sir Richard
Wolsley, were those to whom the shares were set down,
and until the defendant had been required and had signed
the contract, the plaintiffs could not take him in lieu of the
ethers and consider him a proprietor; He submitted,
therefore that the circumstance of his having sent in a
claim to be registered would not render him liable for
these calls. If it appeared that he had participated in
the profits, or that the Company Intel been injured in any
way by his act, then liability would attach, but as the
case at present stood the transfer could not be said to
be legally effected and the defendant was entitled to the
judgment of the Pout.
Lord DENMA:sT quid- it was impossible to forget the fact
that; whatever the Act of Parliament- required, the de-
fendant had held out false colours to induce the
Company to register him as a proprietor, and the
universal rule of law must apply by which where a party
makes a certain representation on which others are in
duped to act, he is bound by that representation. The
judgment of the Court, therefore, must be for the plaintiffs.

THE CHELTENHAM RAILWAY COMPANY V. MEDINA.
The point of objection raised in this case being the
same, the Court also pronounced judgment in favour of
the plaintiffs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 16.

NEILSON AND ANOTHER V. fIARFORD AND ANOTHER.

This was ern action to recover damages for the breach
of a patent right for the making of pipes for conveying
heated air on a new principle. It was tried betbre Baron
Parke, and occupied the time of the Jury three days. A
ride for a new trial was obtained last term, and was ap-
pointed to be argued to-day. The reading of the Judge's
notes occupied upwards of three hours.
After the reading of the,lteport,
Lord ABINGER (the other Judges concurring) said, he
did not see how the verdict. could be. disturbed.--the
elidence was all one way.
The SOLICITOR-G IV:ER*I,, did not think it would be;
come him, after such an intimation; to take.up the timb
of-the Court in supporting_theverdict.
The ATTORNEy-G EtiERAL addressed the Court at some
length, but, finding the Court decidedly against him, ho
said he would not struggle again ,t their Lordship's opi-
nion, andthe rule for anew trial was discharged.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 16.
BTARBItIbGE v. UOSSETTI.
This was an action to recover damages for the breach
of a covenant to repair._
From the evidence given for the plaintiff it
l th ears,
de-
fendantunder the usual
became the assignee of the lease of the ap-
peared that a lease of certain premises in Short's-
gardens- was
granted acnoceedmiinnt
tloB2r Oe p
air
for. thirty-one3e.
pre-
mises in question, where ho carried on the business of
a coach-builder. In 1839 the landlord had the pre-
mises surveyed, and they were found to be in a
very bad state. A specification of the repairs
necessary was made out, and notice to repair ac-
cording to the covenants of the lease, served upon the
defendant. He had some repairs dune, but they were
very trifling, compared to what were necessary. On
being remonstrated with he said he had done all that was
necessary, and would do no mo-e. The plaintiff's surveyor
went over the premises, and his estimate of the repairs
which were necessary amounted to 1401., for which sum
he brought his action.
For the defendant, a surveyor and builder was called.,
who deposed that five months ago ha went over
the premises in quCStion, and offered to put them
in a complete state of repair according to the specifica-
tion served upon the defendant for scl. He was not
shown the covenants of the lease.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, split the differ-
ence between the parties, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff, with Bcl. dama°'es.
Mr. Platt conducted the case for the plaintiff. Mr.
Thesiger was Council for the defendant.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 16.
BENSON v. GRAVES.
Mr. MILLER applied for a rule, calling upon the at-
torney fur the plaintiff to show cause why all proceed-
ings in this action should not be stayed, and why they
should not pay
the costs which had been incurred, and
also the costa of the present application.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who was a widow, 69
years of age, had some years ago deposited in the hands
o ;the defendant, a gentleman of wealth and respecta-
bility, certain deeds and other documents, including her
own will, for safe custody. She had subsequent 4 had