The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-27 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

The Commissioners of Sewers, by Mr. Tyrrell,
brought two cases of dangerous nuisance, within the
scope of the Act for preventing the spread of conta-
geous diseases, under the notice of Sir Peter Laurie
and Mr. Alderman Johnson.

Mr. Haynes, of Belgrave-place, was summoned in
respect to four houses in Swan-lane, Thames-street.
One of the tenants appeared on behalf of the land-
lord, to state that he was quite willing to remedy the
evil, by opening a communication from the privies to
the sewer; the experiment had been•tried at one of
the houses with the result, that at high water the
Thames flowed up the sewers through the privy and
into the cellar, till the depth of the water was some-
times three feet. This annoyance must be removed
by the Commissioners before they could expect a
communication to be opened to the other houses. The
nuisance had been abated by removing the soil.
Sir PETER LAURIE said this was a subject his
brother magistrate understood better than himself.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON observed that the evil
complained of could be remedied by placing a trap at
the mouth of the sewer. The Commissioners would
readily do this. If a petition were presented to the
Commissioners of Sewers, at their weekly meeting, on
Tuesday, the surveyor would be directed to inspect
and report, and then a trap would be ordered to be
fitted to the mouth of the sewer. The Commissioners
were ready to afford any facilities to abate such
nuisances.
An order was made for the abatement of the nui-
sance, to be suspended till the parties could petition
the Court of Commissioners.
Mrs. Webb, of Park-place, Islington, was sum-
moned in respect to a nuisance in Windsor-street,
Bishopsgate-street.
A gentleman, who appeared on her behalf, said he
was ready to amend the matter complained of. She
bad expended 101. in opening a communication to the
common sewer, but it was now discovered that the
opening was made at a point seven feet above the
bottom of the cesspool ; and the • matters which had
in the course of years accumulated in this place
emitted an odour very offensive, which could not be
got rid of; but this would now be remedied by
making an opening from the level of the bottom of
the cesspool.
An order was made to enforce compliance if there
should be any disposition to evade the prompt appli-
cation of the proper remedy.
Mr. John Marriner, the secretary of the North
Wales Railway, was again summoned before Alder-
man Sir Peter Laurie and Mr. Alderman Johnson,
for failing to permit Mr. Archer, a shareholder, to
inspect the company's books within one month after a
general meeting holden on the 27th tilt.
Mr. Shaw appeared for the complainant.
The defendant did not appear, and Mr. Shaw there-
' fore proceeded to show that he had been duly.sum-
moned, in order that he might obtain a decision in
the absence of the accused. The penalty for the
offence is a fine of 51., or any less sum in the discre-
tion of the magistrates.
Roe, the City officer, proved the service of the
summons at No. 14, Beaufort-street, Chelsea, and
also at No. 26, Smith-street, Chelsea.
Mrs. Jenkins, of Beaufort-street, produced the
summons which had been left with her, and also a
notice to produce any of the company's books which
show how, and to whom, and for what purpose the
moneys of the company have been disposed of, and
what securities were held for the same ; and also the
books which had been exhibited to Mr. Archer. She
had not been able to deliver either paper to Mr.
Marriner, nor any of his family. He had never
slept in her house. Mrs. Marriner hired a furnished
lodging on the 10th of September, slept there with
her daughters one night, and then left, saying she
was going to the sea-side, and should return in a
fortnight or a few days longer, and if anything came
for them witness was to take care of it till they re-
turned or wrote. The summons was brought on
Thursday last, and she did not know where to for-.
' ward it to Mr. or Mrs. Marriner.
Mr. Martin, from the city Solicitor's Ace; who

Mr. Chadwick expressed his readiness to do so.
The fact was, the complaint was groundless. The
secretary being unwell, asked leave to go out of town,
and the directors granted it on condition that he pro-
vided a substitute. lie did so, and the young man
was here to prove that he had the care of the books at
the office, that the complainant had seen them, and that
they were open to the inspection of the shareholders
as required by law.
Sir PETER LAURIE said nothing could be fairer
than this.

Mr. Shaw said, however fair it might seem, it was
but a cloak to unfairness. They wanted particular
books which the law required to be kept, and it was
of no use to show them New Testaments or any
other books they did not want. The shareholders
had a' right to know where the funds- of the com-
pany were lodged. A sum of 20,0001. had been paid
away in cheques made out in favour of anonymous
parties, in sums from 1,0001. to 8,000/., and he had a
right to see the books, which contained the entries
as to whom these parties were. If he were shown in
whose hands these sums were he should be satisfied,
and he demanded that information now.

Sir PETER LAURIE said the magistrates could only
enforce the production of the books, and could not
permit any discussion of their contents, or of the
general affairs of the company. The magistrates had
no right to inspect them. It was the privilege only of
the shareholders.

Mr. Shaw thought the magistrates had some juris-
diction in respect to the contents. The law required
certain particulars to be entered in books, and if books
without those particulars, or blank books were pro-
duced, could not the magistrate assume the law was
not complied with, and the production of the book
refused?

Mr. Chadwick said he had only recently been
elected chairman, and upon looking into the concern,
he came to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to
pursue it. It was a scheme for a line in connexion
with the Holyhead line, and as the trunk was at a
discount, what could be hoped for as to the branches?
If the directors called up 101. per share, they would
immediately fall to a discount in the market. The
Holyhead shares were at 15 discount. With the
assent of a meeting of the shareholders, they reduced
the number of directors, and their general expenses,
and determined to advertise to loan their balance of
capital, after defraying preliminary expenses, at five
per cent., on the best security that could be obtained,
subject to be recalled at a month's notice. With this
condition no railway would borrow it, but borrowers
were found. Mr. Archer, the projector of the line,
and some other landowners, the value of whose pro-
perty would be materially improved by the making
of the railway, and who wished to see the line
commenced, made an application to know to whom
the money had been lent. The borrowers would
rather return the money than that their names should
be disclosed, and the directors decided that they
would' refuse the information, and they were ex-
pressly sustained in that course by the majority at the
next meeting of shareholders. The shareholders
placed confidence in the discretion of the directors,
and thought no disclosure' Which might damage the
credit of the borrowers ought to be made. He
re-
garded it as a sort of bubble company, and, thought
the sooner the shareholders all got the residue of
their money in their pockets the better. The--money
was, therefore, about to be recalled, and in about a
month the shareholders would be assembled to dis-
solve and divide the capital.' He hoped that would be
satisfactory to Mr. Archer.
Mr. Archer replied, by no means. He doubted if
there would be anything to divide, and he insisted.
on his right to know now to whom the money was
lent.

Mr. Chadwick repeated that the borrowers would
rather return the money at once than have their names
published to the world. Fifty shareholders were
present at the meeting which assented to Eecresy being
observed.

Mr. Shaw denied that the majority could tyrannise
over the minority in this way. 'The majority might
agree to throw all the money in the Thames, but the
minority had a right to know how it was disposed of.
If the directors had lent the money, they were bound
to enter the fact in the books open to the inspection
of the shareholders. Suppose the directors had .all
been blown up in the Cricket, having confined the
knowledge of these loans to their own breasts, what
would have become of the shareholders?

Sir P. LAURIE thought Mr. Chadwick's statement
was satisfactory. There would soon be a meeting
and a return of assets. He was sorry he could not
arrange between them as man and man. As a ma-
gistrate he was powerless, and therefore must dismiss
the matter.
Mr. Archer intimated that as soon as he could serve
Mr. Marriner personally he would summon him again.
The law gave six months to complain, and he should
call every day to demand a sight of the book.
Here the matter dropped.
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Loader, a cabinet maker, on Moorfields-pave-
ment, was summoned before Aldermen Hooper and
Hughes for allowing a Newfoundland dog to be at
large unmuzzled, to the great danger of her Majesty's
subjects. _ _

By the testimony of a City police-constable, it ap-
peared that the dog, from some offence or other, has
considerable antipathy to the police-officers on duty
in the neighbourhood. No sooner do they pass the
door of the proprietor's residence than out bolts the
beast and makes vigorous efforts to grab at their legs.
Defendant denied it. The dog was a quiet, harm-
less, inoffensive creature if not teased.

Officer—He is quarrelsome to everybody, your
worship.
Defendant—ls he, though ? I'll settle that, your
worship.—(Defendant here gave a loud whistle, and
in rushed a large noble looking brute, who, ap-
parently conscious of what was going on, dodged
around the legs of every one in court, and was on the
best of terms with all, even the stern justices on the
bench.) There now, your worship, here's the beast.
He has been in the Guildhall all the morning, and
seen plenty of policemen ; but I am sure he has not
touched one of them.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES said the dog had some
antipathy to the officers of the peace, and he should
recommend it to be muzzled for their safety.
Defendant answered that he would do so, and
paying the cost of the summons, departed with the
dog.