The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-08 00:00:00

MA Y 8, 1847.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TBURSDA.Y.
CHE BIRAIINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION, AND
BIRMINGHAM, WOLVERHAMPTON, AND DUD-
LEY RAILWAYS AMALGAMATION.
Mr. Cocieermsr (in continuation from our Afternoon
Edition of yesterday) said—lf, however, you look back
oi the 9th and 10th of Victoria, with the Birming-
ram and Oxford Railway Act; you will find that three-fifths
)f the proprietors may be present at such meeting personally
it by proxy ; but here you have the fact, that 35,000 out of
',0,000 shareholders declare that they will have nothing
-whatever to do with the undertaking. The Act states that
-he assent of three-fifths of the proprietors is necessary. I
rave got the dissent of more than three-fifths of the pro-
irietors: this I am prepared to prove. But I am not
to 'be heard. Upon what ground am I to be
.efused ? Simply because the directors are in pos-
session of the seal of the company, and have
-efused to affix that seal to the petition of the shareholders—
hat because they would not issue the sealed certificates
time for the meeting which they had convened.
tad they done so the present Bill could not, of course,
rave been allowed to go on. If, then, those facts
ire proved, what would be the result? Would you pass this
dill in defiance of the opinions of the shareholders? I know
that a notion has got abroad which perhaps the Committee
.nay have heard, a notion that the Great Western Compsny
/rad a right under the Act of the 9th and 10th of Victoria, to
purchase that line; that it was the intention of the Legis-
lature that the Great Western Railway Company should
'rave the Bill; and that we, the shareholders,. are standing
in the way. 'Turn, however, to that Act, and you
will find that no such thing as that is contained in it. It is
a mere permission to the shareholders to sell, and it is a mere
permission to the Great Western Company to buy ; or, it
they don't agree to sell, to rent, or to lease, then
ill parties are to be allowed to do as they like. If the
Great Western Company got a provision inserted in that Bill,
hat in case no such transactions as sale or lease was
entered into, that they would have the power of
running over that line. All parties were therefore, left in
complete statu quo. When Mr. Russell was asked at
that meeting whether the Great Western Company were
prepared to lease or to purchase the line ; on that occasion
be said, "We have power already to use the line for all the
purposes that we may require; but if you come into a new
scheme and agree to be amalgamated with the Birmingham,
Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway Company, we will buy
.you. We shall then get you both. We don't want your
tine; we want the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and
Dudley. In order to obtain the Birmingham, Wolver-
hampton, and Dudley, we will have no objection to
purchase you. You know a great number of the directors
0f the Oxford and Birmingham Company happen to be
either shareholders or directors in the Birmingham, Wol-
vethampton, and Dudley. They are, therefore, perfectly
willing to enter into an arrangement, because they see that
the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway,
which was of less value in the market than the
Birmingham and Oxford, would be able to com-
mand in consequence of that connexion." The share-
holders of the Oxford and Birmingham Company, however,
said " Stop a minute; we are not prepared to do it; we don't
like to do so, and we will remain perfectly independent.
While we remain an independent company, we shall have
the traffic not only of the Great Western, but also of the
London and North-Western Railway running over the line,
and if you (the Great Western) will not buy us as an inde-
pendent line, why there are others who will. If we remain
independent we shall get the traffic of the London and North-
Western, but if we sell to the Great Western we shall not get
it. That company will exclude it." No human being can look to
the Act of Parliament and say that what I have asserted is not
true. The Great Western Company had power to run over
the line, and no arrangement with the London and North-
Western could possibly deprive the Great Western of that
right they had so acquired, but subject always to this right
so acquired by the Great Western Company ; but it remained
open to the Birmingham and Oxford Company to make the
best terms they could with the London and gorth-Western
Company, or to remain independent and secure
what traffic they could for themselves. That
being the case the shareholders had a right
at the meeting held for that purpose to object to the pro-
posed arrangement with the Great Western Company. But
the Great Western Company say that your directors entered
into certain arrangements with us; and the answer is that
srrangemeet is not a binding one, for it was not entered into
with the consent of the, proportion of three-fifths of the
shareholders, as required by the Act of Incorporation. The
pOsition of the parties, therefore, is this—if the agreement
entered into between the directors and the Great Western
Company, on the 12th November, is one which the Great
Western Company has a right to enforce—if that agree-
ment is binding, either in law or equity, they can go into a
court of equity and enforce the performance of the con-
tract, and compel the shareholders to come to Parlia•
runt to obtain the sanction of the Legislature for the
.union of this company with the Great Western Cori-many.
It is clear that the directors have exceeded their powers.
The directors had power given to them, when they asked for
their Act, to constitute the Birmingham and Oxford Co in
pony. They had power which entitled them either to let or
sell the line to the Great Western Company, if the proper
proportion of the shareholders assented to such a proposition,
but we say they had no power whatever to amalgamate
with the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Rail-
way Company, if the Great Western Company sought to en-
force their contract. That would be met by the answer, that
the directors of the Birmingham and Oxford Railway had
exceeded their power, and had been acting in defiance of the
wishes of the shareholders, and had sacrificed the vrooesty
able to enforce their agreement by suit in any seminary court
of law or equity, and in the next session would be compelled
to come to l'ar'liament for new powers to carry out their Act.
But, if before that question can be discussed or decided, you
p iss an Act which will effectually sanction the object of the
Great estern Railway, the theory is settled, and no steps
that can be taken by the shareholders to set aside the pro-
ceedings of their directors can then be of the slightest use to
them. Ido say that, under these circumstances, to proceed
to legislate and determine upon this question would be—and
I say with it due submission, and with unfeigned sincerity
—I do say that it appears to me that it would
be the most flagrant violation of all the fundamental princi-
ples of justice. This is a matter in which you cannot legis-
late without interfering with the rights of individuals. It
may ha, after a due consideration of the whole ques-
tion, that you may come to the conclusion that in cer-
tain cases you are called upon, on grounds of public
necessity, to look over private interest ; but surely I
for the purposes of this Bill such a conclusion is not I
required. The object of this Bill is to enable the directors
to dissolve the present company, and to transfer their interest
to another party. This is manifestly a Bill introduced for the
purpose of interfering with private interests existing under
an Act of Parliament already sanctioning it. Can you doubt
of the result of passing this measure? I admit that in the
case of an individual shareholder, that shareholder, not being
satisfied with the acts of his governors, would, of course, be
bound by the acts of the majority; but surely there never
was such a case brought before any Committee as the pre-
sent. Here are twelve directors, the very legality of whose
office has been called in question, and been de-
cided upon in courts of law and equity. and still
these twelve directors have the hardihood, for I cannot
call it by any milder term, to retain themselves in office, and
come to Parliament for a Bill seriously affecting the interest
of the shareholders. The shareholders being adverse to the
measure, surely then it does not lie in their mouths
to take up a technical objection, and say you
shall not appear under the seal of the company.
I should at least have expected some precedent from them.
These are such powers, I will say, that if no precedent ex-
isted for the adoption of the course which I propose, you
ought to take the initiative, and I will endeavour to show
you that in point of principle and justice, and in point of pre-
cedents, that the shareholders have a right to be heard in
this Committee upon the present occasion. The precedents
were those of shareholders coming to oppose an original Bill
brought into Parliament, and for the purpose of constituting
a company, and in such cases the petitions have been very
properly rejected, and for this simple reason—if a man signs his
name to a contract, under which he binds himself to assent
to an application to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining
certain conditions, with an end to the execution of certain
works, that such a person should not be allowed
afterwards to come forward and say. I, as an in-
dividual, object to that being done, to which I, as an indi-
vidual, had given my sanction to be done, or should go to
Parliament to obtain powers to perform. This, however,
is not such a case as that. I will allude, with the permission
of the Committee, to various authorities fur the course which
we aro now proceeding to take. I will go back as far as the
year 1844. It we had searched the records of Parliament
further back no doubt a number of more precedents might be
found. The question as between shareholders and
directors has been very much opened and brought out
by the vast number of companies that have been established
since that time, for the purpose of forming railways.
I can find, however, a considerable number of pre-
cedents for the course which I now propose to take.
I Lind the Midland Railway Consolidation Act in that case
there were three Bills sought to be fused into one, they were
the North Midland Railway, the Midland Counties Railway,
and the Birmingham and Derby Railway. This Act was
brought forward in the session of 1843. The Committee
upon that Bill reported that they had heard counsel on the
petition of Mr. Jessop, a shareholder in the Midland Counties
Railway ; that petition set forth that the objects sought to
he obtained by the Bill would be injurious to his interests
as a shareholder. T here was also a number of petitions of share-
holders is the company against the Bill,for whom my Learned
Friend Sir J. Bailey appeared. There was also the petition
of several miners, colliers, and others interested in the line,
who opposed the passing of the Bill; the whole of which pe-
titions were referred to the Committee, and reported upon by
them. There was also a petition of Lieut.-Col. Blanc, a di-
rector of the Birmingham and Derby Railway, stating that
he disapproved of the amalgamation of these companies, the
same having been brought about by improper means, and the
effect of it would be prejudicial to his interests as a shareholder
of that company. Counsel were heard in support of the
several petitions. Mr. Austin, Mr. Sergeant II ng tam, and
Mr. Edwin James, appeared for Col. Blane. ra. Dorrington
was the agent.
ciummAN—Was there any objection taken to those peti-
tions ?
Mr. COMBURN—You may depend upon it, Sir, that
can
wherever you see our friend Mr. Austin's name, if any objec-
tionpossibly be taken, he will be quite prepared to take
it. The next case is one taken in the same year. It is the
Eastern Counties Railway Bill.
The object of the Bill was
to transfer the North-Eastern line to the Eastern Counties
Company. In that case petitions were presented 'against.the
Bill, and the allegations in these petitions were considered,
counsel were heard thereon,land cls.
ldauses were inserted pro-
tective of tire rights of the s areho er
CHAIRMAN—NV hat was the object of that Bill?
Mr. COCKBURN-1 he object of that Bill was to effect the
lease to the Eastern Counties Company of the railway and
works of the North Easternand Counties Company. In
fact, it was a Bill the
object of which was to authorise the
letting on lease to the Eastern Counties Company of the
works of the North and
Eastern Counties Company, and the
petitioners in the case were shareholders of the North
mern and
They stated that the aalga-
Eastern Counties Company.
Illation would be prejudicial to their interests as share-
holders. What I wish to show is, that shareholders
not consenting to the sale or amalgamation of the company
were heard in opopo one o the views of the directors, they
amalgamate with the Eastern Counties
being willing
Company. This showed that the shareholders were entitled
to come forward end complain of a sale which might affect
.
their interests, and they were heard in opposition.

CHAIRMAN—I don't think that they complained against
the preamble of the Bill.
Mr. COCKBURN-With great submission, I do not see that
that can make any distinction in my argument. The share-
holders come forward and say " We -oppose the passing of
this Bill." Whether they opposed the preamble of the Bill
or not does not matter. The allegations in the petition were
considered, counsel were heard thereon, and a clause was
inserted.

CHAIRMAN—It appears to me that they appeared in oppo-
sition to certain clatNes.

Mr. COCKBURN—Perhaps you are right, but in point of
principle it is the same thing; for if the shareholder can be
heard against any part of the provisions of the Bill, he can
surely be heard against the Bill at large. It is hearing one
part only, instead of the whole. In the one case he has an
objection to the whole, and in another to a part of the Bill.
If it is in accordance with the principle or practice
of this House to prevent me being heard against
the whole Bill, why should I be allowed to be
heard against a part? The question which we are
now to discuss is a question of locus standi. The ques-
tion is whether certain parties have a right ou the substantial
distinction as against the Bill to be heard. I will now call
the attention of the Committee to the report of the Com-
mittee of Inquiry upon the Garnkirk, Glasgow, and Coat-
bridge Railway, in the year 1845. In this case petitions were
presented, complaining of certain extensions as calculated
to be injurious to them. The allegations in this
petition were considered by the Committee, and counsel were
heard thereupon. That, Sir, is of considerable importaine.
That was the case of a Scotch Bill. Now the pertinacity
and pugnacity—lsay this without meaning any offence to any
Scotchmen—with which counsel, agents, and all the parties
on Scotch Bills struggled was well known. We have two or
three more Committees at the further end of the gallery,
and I can assure the Committee that all parties
do fight the thing to the very bone itself. I
am sure that if such objection could have been taken
with any propriety or any chance of success, the
counsel concerned in this case, and the agents, would have
been sure to have taken an opportunity of making that ob-
jection. But, at all events, there is another opportunity
for the shareholders being heard against the Bill.
Then again there was the Newcastle and Darlington Railway
(Brandling Junction). Lord Woraley reported on the
30th of May, 1845, that they had heard the petition of the
'Rev..itobert Greeen, a shareholder in the Northumberland
iv, who objected to the power of selling the Brand-
ling Junction to the Newcastle and Darlington Rail-
way. Counsel were heard in support of his petition,
and an arrangement was come to with the petitioner and
promoters of the Bill. It is often the case that parties, in
course of a discussion, compromise the matter, and come to
some terms with the parties, in order to save further expense
and trouble. In that case counsel were heard upon the pe-
tition, and the Committee would have reported upon the
matter, had not a compromise been come to between the '
parties. The petition, however, was referred to the Committee,
Then there was the report of Committee on the Tall Vale Rail-
way on the 12th of May, 1844. The object of that Bill was to
make a short deviation of a branch, and to raise additional
capital for that purpose. A petition was presented from
the holders of certain shares in the capital stock of the com-
pany ; they objected having an additional sum raised, and that
w
the works of the line extended beyond the works authorised
to be constructed under the Act. Then ti
petition from the Glamorganshire Canal Company—
counsel
were heard in support of the petition.
Then, again, in the report of the Glasgow Junction Railway,
Mr. Ellice reported that they had heard counsel on the
petition of certain shareholders of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kil-
marnock, and Ayr Railway against the purchase of the pro-
posed line, as it would be injurious to the property which
they possessed in that railway. The Committee made a spe-
cial report to the House upon the subject of allowing the
petition of shareholders to be heard against the Bill. In the
case of the Dublin and Enniskillen Railway, my Learned
Friend Mr. Whateley appeared for the shareholders of the
company. Perhaps my Learned Friend will recol-
lect the circumstance. Then, again, there was the
case of the Great Western Railway in Ireland,
at which Committee Mr. Thomas Duncombe presided. The
question was there discussed, and it was decided that the
shareholders should not be heard against the Bill. But
mark what was the result. There were competing parties
in that line, not, as in the present case, depending upon mere
ex-parte statements. After the Committee sat for a week
they sent for the counsel, who had been excluded.
Now, I put this as a pretty strong illustration
of the impolicy of laying down a general rule for the exclu-
sion of parties under such circumstances. Now, lam per-
fectly aware that such cases may be said to stand upon their
own merits; I state them in order to show to the Com-
mittee, upoti the authority of these precedents, that even
though a general rule may be laid down, it is not always
convenient to adhere to it in the discussion of these
questions. Then, again, there was the Colchester and Stour
Valley Railway. That railway wanted to purchase
the navigation. Mr. Forbes Mackenzie in this case
allowed the petitioners to be heard by counsel.
There was the decision of Lord Brougham in the case cf
Ware against the Grand Junction Railway, in 1831. The
opinion of this person, holding a high position and station,
will be entitled to some weight. The case which
came before his Lordship was the case of an
individual against' the board of directors which bad
for its object to restrain them from going beyond
the powers which they possessed by the Act of ,Parliament.
It was the case of a single shareholder against the acts of the
directors. What said Lord Brougham ? His Lordship said
this—and I beg the Committee to bear in mind
these words:—" Although I may be disposed to support
theoi "iu -reeirsia& -MIL B.T-Iticeneie- -,,,11.1.? 411" 'Mil IC a vt lots
kind. I can see nothing to prevent that body so dealing
with itself in the manner so complained of in the petition,
and asking for an alteration in its own constitution ; indeed,
of this there is no doubt." liis Lordship went on to state
that he would not grant to a single shareholder as against
the company any injunction; if he were to do so, there was
not a single individual who fancied himself aggrieved with the
proceedings of his directors but would appear betbre that tri-
bunal where, by his agents and counsel, he might oppose
the Bill passing into law. " Was not that (said his Lordship)
the old and constitutional mode and regular mode of procedure ?
If this Bill is listened to ei•ery time a new Act is applied for
a single individual who might choose to differ
from the rest might come before the court
and obtain his injunction. I for one will not
assist in encouraging such litigation. The proper place
for persons to oppose will be before the Committees of that
Legislature before which the Bill is placed." That, Sir, is
the proper place for persons to seek to be heard by their
counsel, their agents, and their witnesses. That this autho-
rity is entitled to some weight is clear, because we have the
present Lord Chancellor refusing individual shareholders
the relief which they pray, on the express ground that, in
another place. before a Committee of the House of Commons
such
or House of Lords, they might appear in pprt o
cases. I ask, then, what are all these cases to which I have
referred your Committee, compared with that Which is now
under Your consideration? In all these instances we have a
few dissentient shareholders objecting to the course
about to be pursued, and these all pray to be
heard in their individual capacity against the direc-
tors of the body of which they were members, on the
ground that they had certain rights vented in them by
existing Acts. You cannot, therefore, deprive them of their
rights; but if shareholders are to be set at defiance by
directors retaining possession of the common seal of the
company, they would be enabled to do so, and might
proceed without the sanction of the shareholders.
In the present case the body of directors were proposing to do
something which was beyond the scope of the power vested
in them. The shareholders consider that this ought to be
prevented. Can anything offer a stronger case
than this, where the directors come to this House
for power to do that which is beyond the scope
of their Act, and against the wishes of the direc-
tors? The shareholders in this instance come forward
and proclaim the directors traitors to their interests, and
they say that, at the only meeting where their voices could
be heard, they Called upon the directors to affix the corpo-
rate seal to the petition which was the result of their unani-
mous feeling. I now present with all humility, but with the
most perfect confidence, to you the petition of Sir H. Verner and
live other persons, because the directors refused to affix the
corporate seal to that which was in fact the petition of the
corporate body. Unless that petition be heard, unless
the allegations contained in that petition be proved—
and I pledge myself to do so—except. I say, these
allegations are heard, and you give the oppor-
tunity of proving the same, you will not only
fearful
and doing a most crying injustice, and establish a most
and fatal precedent, and that, too, in:the face of all those
precedents to which I have already called your attention, and
which are weak indeed, compared to the case which I have
now to present to you, you would allow, by such a cours,e,
any directors who were in the possession of the corporate seal
of the company to dispose of, without appeal, without the
possibility of the shareholders coming forward to protect
their rights and interests. Surely, Sir, that is a state of
things you can never sanction, or for hich you would not
surely establish a precedent. For the purpose of my argu-
ment every allegation in that petition must be taken as
proved. If they were proved, could you then pass the Bill?
Would you so far interfere with the indisputable rights of
the parties whom I represent? I cannot for a moment sup-
pose that you would do so. It would be a most mon-
strous thing. Can you, if this be proved, which is
the foundation of my application—if these) allegations, I say,
are proved, can you report to the House, of which you are so
honoured a member, that the preamble of this Bill has been
proved? Can you report that it is the desire of the share-
holders that the preamble of this Bill should be reported as
proved, and that it is brought forward with their concur-
rence. Sir, lam prepared to show you that it is not so. If
those facts and allegations contained in the petition are to be
proved, how are they to be proved? Are they to be proved
by ex parte statements, or are they to be openly met by the
shareholders at once before this Committee? But when
you find the directors, from the beginning of the concern
' evidently to avoid an opportunity for taking the sense of the
body at large, postponing the issue of the sealed certificates,
and at the last moment, taking care to call the meeting at
such a time as they could command the majority—
compliance
find them refusing to postpone the meeting,
sin
with the unanimously-signed requisition of tihssusehathreehsoeladleedrs
—when you find them taking care not. to
certificates in time for the general meeting when you find.
the directors refusing t,) go out of office, so as to give legal
opportunity to elect others—when, on the lath of March, the
shareholders did what the directors could. no longer prevent
them from doing, namely, appoint six directors who would
be willing find c fOr their interests, —when, I
find these other directors doing all
say, you
they could to make that election a mere mockery
and a delusion, by the appointment of a committee,
by delegating the whole functions of the directors to that
Committee nominated by the directors themselves—the
directors -of that new company, of which they had been
charged by the shareholders as guilty of selling their in-
terests to the Great Western Company —I am sure, Sir, you
will not lend your sanction to a course of proceeding like this.
They cannot suffer if my statement is proved. The
Great Western were bound in right by virtue of
what they have' done, and there will be abundant
opportunities hereafter for them of proving those rights; but
if you now put the final seal of your sanction upon, this
nefarious transaction there is an end to the possibility of any
justice in any court of law or equity afterwards being suc-
cessfully applied for on this subject. I submit, there-
fore, that upon the grounds of principle, upon the
grounds of precedent, upon the grounds of justice, and
upon the grounds of common sense, that we should
be heard on this petition, and be allowed a full opportunity
of proving the allegations contained therein: But when, as
is the can in the petition before you, tine was orally a want

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 7.
(Before Mr. Under- Sheriff But R.CHELL.)
CRIBI. CON.-BOODE V. WILSON.
This was an action for criminal conversation. The da•
mages were laid at 10,0001., and judgment had been suffered
to go by default.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Al. Chambers, and Mr. Cow-
ling, appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr.
Ellis for the defendant.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the plaintiff, Mr. John
Christian Boode, was a gentleman of large property, residing
at Lucknam Park, near Bath, and having estates in the
West Indies. His real property was about 50,000/. or
60,000/. His lady was the daughter of the late Admiral Sir
Henry Bayntun, and she had, in her own right, a property
of 1,5001. or 1,6001, a year, and was, besides, a lady of great
attractions. The marriage took place in 1834. and, until the
bu
enrfolratiutn, attheeyocchuardrelnivceedwohni cthe
rmh e s hoafd
tthoomgreneatitoesn
t,
i in
a Dp
peicneer as
s-.
Twleireefruniotws
lofivtihn.
eg
T marriagehey werewere fins; ,
e andch ildrreeqno, i
roofdwthhoo d
amtiwl3o,
nay, hourly, superintendence of a mother. They had been,
deprived of that loss, and had to deplore, the fall of one whose
presence they had so much needed., The defendant, Herbert
Lowther Wilson, was a gentleman of some fortune.—be-
tween 2,000/. and 3,0001. He was the son of Sir John Wil-
son, and was, besides, an officer in the Grenadier Guards.
He had been on the greatest terms of friendship with the
plaintiff, and at the time of the occurrence was a guest
at the house of his friend, the plaintiff, at Luckpam Park.
The 27th of December last was a Sunday, and on that
day Mrs. Boode attended church in the morning, as well as
the school. She was unwell, and left church, but returned
and partook of the sacrament. She was again present
at the evening service. Mr. Boode had occasion to be out
late the same evening, writing letters connected with his
estates in the West Indies, and about one o'clock returned.
Not finding his wife in her hsel-room. lie ihnuo•ht .1,..
thought be would go into his room, and ther.einteraOfed ed
his wife. There was no doubt ur tho ,nr y o the
parties, and the discovery then made had led to the present
proceedings.
Mrs. Boucle had left the hcuse of her hus-
band. Before the discovery there was no suspicion of his
site's infidelity. The defendant was a guest at his table,
and until the occurrence nothing had happened to awaken
the slightest suspicion as to the conduct of the parties.
The jury would learn that the plaintiff had been attentive
and kind to his wife ; there was no disparity in their
ages, and as to the defendant, he was a young man of about
twenty years old.
Sir F. TIIESIGER (interposing)—Twenty ! he is a little
more than 17.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he undorstood he was
more than 17.
Sir F. Tiii,:sicam (holding up a document) said it had been
admitted, and would show that the defendant was little more
than 17.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded—The lady, be be-
lieved, was 30 or 32. Be the age of the defendant what it
might, he had lived long enough in the world not to violate
the rights of hospitality in the manner he had done ; he
therefore called upon the jury to give such substantial
damages as would mark their sense of his conduct.
Mr. Dowding, a solicitor at Bath, stated that the plaintiff
married in 1834, when 30,0001. was settled. Mrs. Boode
had an incotne at the present time, in her own right, of
1,5001. a year. Mr. Boode was a very kind and indulgent
husband, and they had lived happily together. Two
daughters were now alive, one about 12 or 13, and the other
very young.
Mr. Mowens, a West India merchant, bad known the plain-
tiff twenty years, and had visited him since his marriage at
Lucknam Park, where they resided when not on the conti-
nent. They lived on the most affectionate terms. The
youngest child was between one and two years old. The
plaintiff, who was of a Dutch family, and whose relatives re-
sided abroad, had a very agreeable house, and had gone to
great expense to please his wife.
Mr. Fuller, of Neston Park, Wiltshire, also gave evidence
as to the terms on which the plaintiff and his wife lived. He
I described them as a happy couple. He knew Sir H. Bayntun,
1 Mrs. Boode's father, as also her brother.
Mr. J. Neeld, M.P., gave similar evidence as to the terms
on which the parties lived. He knew Mr. Wilson, the de-
fendant, also ; he was a young man, between seventeen and
eighteen years old. He was not aware that Mrs. Boode re-
ceived visits in her bed-room.
Sir F. TRESIGER asked whether she did not, according to
the French style, receive such visits?
Mr. Neeld said he was not aware that such was the case.
In answer to the Arronxev• GENERAL, Mr. Neeld said the
defendant appeared to be twenty-four or twenty-five; he was
six feet high. He had not been long in the army.
Sir F. TMESIGER said commissions could be obtained at
sixteen years of age.
thbefprraM3i-lffdea,t,Ndvitifeisofwtihtee
fricre%;;l:lif..eWle'arldse: rector,The hliardekdnown
hap-
pily together. She never heard of Mrs. Boode receiving
visits in her bed-room.
A document was put in evidence, at the request of Sir. F.
T/INSIGER, from which it appeared that on the death of the
defendant's parents he would be entitled to 2,711/. 9s. 6d. in
the Three per Cent. Bank Annuities.
Sir F. THESIGER addressed the Court. The seducer in
this case, as the jury had heard, was between 17 and 18
years old, and the object of this painful inquiry was 31 or
32. He was not aware that an appearance in height had
anything to do with a youthful mind, but he was cure that
in no ether manner was the defendant to be regarded than
as a mere boy, a circumstance which was of the utmost im-
portance in estimating the damages, but which his Learned
Friend had avoided in his address to the jury. The duty of
a jury, in a case of the present description, was no doubt a
difficult and perplexing one ; they had to weigh and to esti-
mate the amount of damages to be awarded under all the
circumstances which had been presented to their notice.
There There were three parties in the case, the husband,
and the seducer, or, as he should be called in
.3 thiserect. ctasheec till.'
seduced, for in no other light could he be co
three parties to an
Learned Counsel drew a picture
_f
macottioenthoacthoenccehathraacttetrhebepfolareitltthear a &dbiauvdtrot.:cueTb:nbaenitjdtuetrydhat hot a
tcdhi
re heard :
sent publicity in order to onbatai
andditional reason for them to
stance had been urgeddas
substantial damages. He now had
give what were termed
tthhee shLtiussfaectoifonLtoordins,olramtgtehedajmuraygtehsawt,erteo
notin insure
required,
forin
he remembered a case in which 40s. were awarded by consent;
and, in that case, the plaintiff succeeded in his object. What
means bad the defendant of paying any damages? They
had beard of his property, 2,7001., on the death of his parents.
He besought the jury to consider that the gallant officer,
the father of the youthful defendant, would have to pay the
I
damages, and he was sure they would not inflict an addi-
tional injury on him.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, in his directions to the
jury, told them they would, in estimating the damages, con-
sider the loss the plaintiff had sustained by the act of the
defendant, who, by not pleading, had admitted that he was
a wrongdoer. The jury bad nothing to do with subsequent
proceedings ; they had to estimate the loss sustained,
under all the circumstances, and to give their verdict ee-
-1 cordingly.
The jury consulted for half-an-hour, and then assessed the
damages at 40s.

Bell's Life in London, Sunday, May 9, will give
a chart of 'Newmarket race-course, with references; the
pugilistic contest between s Ingham ; Second
Newmarket Spring Mee ' , and all other sporting events.
A sixpence enclos.l. Ir. Clement, junior, will ensure a
copy of Beli's lAA by return of post to any part of England,
Scotland, or Ireland.
BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, MAY s.—The business
done this week has not exceeded 300 'Ads. of West India
sugars, principally to the refiners, at about last week's rates.
At a public sale to-day of 1,593 mats damaged Manilla
sugar, ex Ripley, the whole were sold at 16s. 6d. and 17s. 6d.
in bond. A few small sales have been made in rums: Lee-
wards, 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d.; Demeraras, 4s. Ad. ; Jamaica,
is. 10d.=-Bristol-Gazette.