The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-24 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

The return of the amounts paid on account of railway de-
posits for Bills before the House of Commbna during the pre-
sent session has just been published. The whole amount
paid to the Court of Chancery in England is 11,396,7831.95.
10d. For Scotland the amount is 2,323,3711. 103. ; and for
Ireland about 900,0001.
A practice has arisen among certain dealers in railway
shares which is not only dishonest in itself, but is likely to
produce serious evil. When a person sells his share in a con-
stituted line, he executes a transfer deed' to the purchaser,
who should acknowledge the transfer and get it registered in
the office of the company. By this means the purchaser's
name is substituted for that of the vendor, who, although he
may have executed the deed and received the purchase
money, is not exonerated from his liability till this last
formality is complied with. Of late several instances have
occurred where the purchasers, though they have paid for
the shares, have neglected to register the transfers. By
this non-performance of their contract—fur it is no
better—they secure an ability of completing the trans-
action whenever they think fit. If the shares rise in the
market, so that they can dispose of them in the market,
there is no doubt they will comply with every requisition ;
but if anything turns up in the shape of a disagreeable lia-
bility, they can easily avoid it, as their names are not regis-
tered, and the vendor, whose name is still on the deed, will
have to bear the brunt. The vendors who are placed in this
predicament are uneasy enough, but there seems no method
of transferring the burden Of liability to the proper shoulder,
but the very tedious and expensive one of a bill in Chancery.
Some hope that as the Legislature is about the work of re-
form in railway matters, this matter may come under consi-
deration, and that some more summary process of enforcing
the completion of railway transfers may be devised.
The letter urging the shareholders of the Dublin and Gal-
way Company to wind up their affairs has drawn forth some
remarks by 'an original shareholder," printed also in a
pamphlet form. The charges made in the extract given by
us were to the effect that the line was wrongly named
" Dublin and Galway," as it only goes from Portarlington to
Galway, and that it was got up, not for the benefit of its
own proprietary, but for the use of the Great Southern and
Western Railway.
In answer to the first charge, the writer of the " remarks"
makes the following statement :
" What is meant by the statement that it is a line only
from Portarlington to Galway, it is difficult to imagine; for
if this were so, it would be a bad bargain indeed for the
western people to make ; but it happens to be just the re-
verse of fact that the line stops short at Portarlington ; it
is, on the contrary, for all locomotive, and indeed for every
purpose, unbroken and continuous from Dublin to Galway ;
and as for Portarlington being a small town, why, grant it;
and that it is 45 miles from Dublin, and on the line of the
Great Southern and Western Company, grant also ; but so
much the better for the Galway Company, for 45 miles of the
line towards Galway will be open in October, and will not
cost them a shilling to construct."
On the other point he says—
'• It is but necessary to say that the two companies were
formed at different periods, and for distinct objectsr-the one
to open the communication to the south, the other to the
west; and if the former obtain the traffic of the latter fir
40 miles towards Dublin, the latter have not contributed a
shilling for the formation of those 40 miles upon which the
traffic will run for that distance, and in addition the Galway
Company will participate in the advantages of a terminus in
Dublin, using it as much and as freely as their own Galway
terminus, without paying a guinea towards its erection, or
contributing a farthing to the purchase of the expensive pro-
perty upon which it stands."
Having given the answer of the opposite party to the at-
tack originally made, we must here decline all further notice
of the controversy.— Tizzies.