The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-24 00:00:00

COWELL V. TIPROSE.

Mr. Sergeant JONES applied for a rule for a new
trial in this case. The plaintiff had been charged by
the defendant with felony for breaking open a shop and
abstracting articles, in consequence of which he was ap-
prehended, imprisoned in the station-house for one night,
and discharged the next morning by the magistrate, in
consequence of its appearing that the entry into the
shop had been effected tor the purpose of levying a dis-
tress. The plaintiff brought an action, and obtained a
verdict for 51. The ground of application for a new
trial was that the venue had been laid in London,
whereas no evidence had been given that anything had
..een done there, for the arrest and imprisonment took
place in Surrey.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, that as the allegations
before the magistrate must have been stated on the trial,
the present representation was erroneous.—The rule
was accordingly refused.
There being no other business ready, the Court ad-
journed till Monday.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 21.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE THE TRING, READING, AND BASINGSTOKE RAILWAY
COMPANY.
This was a meeting for passing the last examination
of the gentlemen who were appointed to make out the
balance-sheet.
Mr. RICHARDSON, for a shareholder, observed, that he
held the Bill presented by this company to Parliament,
and by that Bill it appeared that there were five
directors, who were to receive five shares each, and there
was no mention of that circumstance in the balance-sheet,
upon which they now sought to pass their last exami-
nation.
Mr. E. JAMES, for the directors, said that they must
receive five shares each, in order to qualify them, and in
the present case the deposits upon them were never paid,
but, however, it did not affect the balance—that was the
best the bankrupts could give.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.—Yes, but it may not be
satisfactory to the Court.
Mr. RICHARDSON submitted that there ought to be an
adjournment of the case, in order to enable the share-
holders to make further inquiry.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD refused to grant the ad-
journment.
Mr. JAMES remarked that in point of fact this gentle-
man was a bankrupt, instead of a creditor.
Mr. Duscete interposed by stating that this client (Mr.
Atkinson) was a creditor who had proved_ his debt, and
would ask the bankrupts a few questions.
Mr. LAWRANCE, fur the assignees, must object to Mr.
Duncan being heard, on the ground that his client had re-
ceived 20s. in the pound, and 4 per cent. interest.
Mr. Dutticart replied that there was a small balance
due to Mr. Atkinson by the bankrupts, which was unpaid.
The Hon. F. H. Berkeley (one of the bankrupts) wished
to state that with respect to the five shares be•ore al-
luded to, the deposits upon them were never paid, and
therefore the balance-sheet was correct.
Mr. Everill, solicitor to the company, corroborated
this statement.
Mr. OGLE then rose to address the Court on behalf of
a scripholder, when
Mr. LAWRANCE objected, that a scripholder had no
locus standi in this court to oppose.
Mr. OGLE having referred to the cases of Walstab v.
Spottiswoode, and Wontner v. Sharp, referring to the
srguments there used, submitted that he had a right to
be heard.
Mr. LAWRANCE observed that if the Learned Counsel
was in a position to prove, he might be heard, because
hewa. either a creditor or a bankrupt.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD could not allow Mr.
Ogle to be heard.
Mr. LAWRANCE stated that it was intended to super-
sede this fiat. All the creditors would receive 20s. in
the pound, and it was highly necessary to look into the
proofs, because this case must be dealt with as all other
bankruptcy cases.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD—Certainly.
Tne Hon. F. H. Berkeley was then examined, and
stated that he was Member for Bristol, and had become
a director of the Tring Railway, but upon whose request
he could not now charge his memory. He had not re-
ceived anything from the company from first to last.
He never had an allotment of shares, but had received
money from the company for his services as director and
chairman, although he had not attended so punctually as
he ought, and upon the retirement of the former chair-
man, he (Mr. Berkeley) was completely thrust into the
situation, notwithstanding that he had previously refused
it. He was not aware of the amourt he had received for
his services, but, however, it was small.
Mr. Graham, the official assignee, stated it to be
651. 2s.
Examination continued—The company had capital
sufficient fur a small portion of the scheme, which they
went to Parliament upon. It was a bond fide line, re-
ceiving the approbation of the landowners. After the
Bill was committed. Mr. Duncombe's resolution respect-
ing railways was passed, which gave a right to the share-
holders to stop the company before going to the Com-
mittee, and they directed that the Bill should be drawn,
and it was done so. The result was, the bankrupt ap-
peared at this court. The balance-sheet now before the
Court was the best which could be rendered, and he had
no notion of concealment or keeping anything back.
Mr. GRAHAM stated that there appeared by the ba-
lance- sheet to have been 200 shares allotted to Mr.
Berkeley.
Examination resumed—Most certainly not upon his
application, and he was never informed that any such
allotment had taken place. He had never traded or sold
any shares, although he had had ample opportunity, be-
cause shares were at a premium.
Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD--Did you know that
these shares were allotted to you? The Lion. F. H.
Berkeley—No, sir, I did not.
Mr. JAMES—Have you been in communication with
the official assignee ? The Hon. F. H. Berkeley—Yes.
Mr. JAMES—Have you given up all the papers, and .
made the best account of the company's affairs, you can?
iThe Hon. F. H. Berkeley— Yes, to the best of my
knowledge.
Mr. GRAHAM then referred
bitNice.shoet to a memorandum in the
respecting the allocation of 875 share,.