The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-29 00:00:00

THE NEW MAYORALTY.

By desire of the LORD MAYOR, who stated that he
had received certain papers on the subject of the Talacre
mine from Alderman Wood,
The TOWN-CLERK read the papers, which were es
follows;

" Committee-room, Bow-lane, Sept. 25.
, " Sir,—l have the honour to transmit the copy of
resolutions passed at a public meeting of the inhabitants
of the ward of Cordwainers, and other friends of Mr.
Alderman Wood, held this day, for the purpose of taking
the necessary steps to secure his election for Lord Mayor
for the ensuing year.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" WILLIAM MUDDELL, Chairman."
"At a public meeting of the inhabitants of the ward
of Cordwainer, and other friends of Mr. Alderman
Wood, convened by public advertisement, held on Friday,
the 25th of September instant, at the Crown Tavern
Bow-lane—Mr. Deputy Muddell in the chair,
" It was moved by Mr. Deputy Lake, and seconded by
Mr. Wilson—' That the unabated confidence of this
meeting in Mr. Alderman Wood cannot be more forcibly
expressed than by an earnest assurance that each and
every individual composing it will use his utmost en-
deavours to secure the election of the worthy alderman
to the civic chair.'
" It was moved by Mr. T. Joyce, and seconded by Mr.
C. Bleaden—' That a copy of the foregoing resolution
be forwarded to the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, and to
each member of the Court of Aldermen.'"
The LORD MAYOR said he had also received a volu-
minous report of the judgment of the Chief Justice of
the Queen's Bench in Ireland, purporting to be the
judgment upon the reversal of verdicts against Alder-
man Wood. He had, he said, been supplied with the
copy by the Alderman, who, it appeared, had sent to
each of the members of the Court a copy of extracts,
which was enclosed in the following letter:—
" TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF ALDERMEN.
" Dear Sirs,—ln consequence of the statement made
in the Court of Aldermen, on Tuesday last, relative to
the late trials in Ireland respecting the Talacre Mining
Company, in the cause of ' Howard v. Shaw,' being an
action tried by direction of Lord Chancellor Sugden. at
the request of the defendant, in order to test the validity
of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant in respect
of two promissory notes, amounting to 7,0001., sought
to be recovered from the defendant as a shareholder and
director of that company, the defendant having disputed
the same on the ground of the general fraud alleged to
have been practised against him in inducing him to sign
the notes.

" The proceedings originally commenced in the Court
of Bankruptcy there; and in order to try the point the
Court considered only on condition of the defendant
paying the amount claimed; viz., 7,0001. into Court to
await the result.

" Upon this condition the action was commenced, and
ultimately tried, when, upon the gross misrepresentations
of counsel, unsupported by evidence, as borne out by the
Chief Justice, and, contrary to law, the jury found a
verdict for the defendant.

" The plaintiff thereupon filed a bill of exceptions to
the evidence tendered, and upon a most imprtant
argument, and a full and searching investigation of
voluminous documentary evidence, the Court came to
the unanimous decision, that there was no fraud or
imposition practised upon the defendant in this trans-
action, or upon any one else connected with it.
" I did not conceive that this could have made any im-
pression until I heard that the newspapers reporting the
trial had been received, while those reporting the judg-
ment reversing the verdict had not been heard of.
" Under these circumstances I immediately obtained a
copy of the shorthand-writer's notes of the judgment,
and sent a copy to the gentleman, who expressed his
surprise that the verdicts were reversed, and being very
voluminous, I have made extracts of the conclusions
which form the judgment, a copy of which I now send
you, an entire copy having been left in the hands of the
Lord Mayor, which is accessible to any member of the
Court of Aldermen.

" This judgment not only goes into the general
question of fraud, but takes up and exonerates me from
the only censure of the Court of Queen's Bench in
England, namely, as to Levason's Bills, which, with all
becoming respect to that Court, appears to have been im-
properly considered, and leaves me now in a position to
say, that after the fullest investigation, I bare ju-
dicially demonstrated that there was not, and could not
be, the slightest ground for the alleged fraud in these
transactions, so far as I was concerned, or indeed, any
one else.

" I might have given this information a little earlier,
but until the last meeting of the Court of Aldermen, I
was not aware that the papers which contained the in-
telligence of the verdict, in the first instance, would not
also have contained the information of its reversal.

" I am, dear Sirs, yours respectfully,
" THOMAS WOOD.
" 2, Corbet-court, Gracechurch-street,
Sept. 23, 1846."
" TALACRE MINING COMPANY.

" Reversal of Verdicts against Alderman Wood.

" Ireland.
" Court of Queen's Bench, Easter Term, 1846.
" HOWARD V. SHAW.
" Tuesday, April 23, 1846.
" Extract from Judgment.
" The Lord Chief Justice, in a voluminous judgment
given in this action upon a Bill of Exceptions tendered
against the evidence admitted on the two previous trials,
upon which the defendant, who had obtained.. verdicts,
was sued to recover the sum of 7,000/. upon two pro-
missory notes signed by him and other of the directors
of the Talacre Company—the defence to the action
being want of consideration in the plaintiff ; that they
were obtained by fraud ; that the defendant had been
imposed upon and defrauded by signing these notes ;
that there was proof of a conspiracy between Levason
and the other parties ; and that they were all in fur-
therance of the common object and contrivance to de-
fraud and cheat the public, and induce the defendant,
amongst others, to take shares and become partners in
that company, and that the evidence given by them on
the trials fully proved the same.
" The Chief Justice, after recapitulating the evidence
given, said W hen it was given and read, it was under
the condition and on the assumption that proofs would
be afterwards made to justify its admission ; and if such
proofs were not made, the exceptions should hare been
and must now be allowed.'

" His Lordship, after proceeding to show the de-
fendant's liability, says—' We have next to see did the
defendant voluntarily, and with all due means of in-
formation, engage
„to secure Levason in the amount of
these-notes ; and to judge accurately on this subject, we
must come to the transactions of the 17th, 19th, and the
20th February, 1841, which Pre dates of the utmost im-
portance in this case. It is said that these transactions
exhibit proofs of imposition on the defendant, and igno-
rance on his part of his exact position on that day. That
he believed himself liable to pay Levason, and was de-
ceived into this belief. Now I have sought in vain for
any evidence of any such imposition—there is no evi-
dence that deeds, books, or documents, or information,
were withheld from him ; the contrary is fairly pre-
sumable, if not actually proved. There is no reality, no
substantial difference, between the direct liability of the
company to pay Levason, and its liability to pay those
who owed it to him. The fact indigmtably was that the
company had Levason's property—were bound to pay
for it—and it was immaterial whether they paid it
through the medium of the eight directors, or paid it at
once to Levason himself. But it isnot necessary to con-
sider this part of the case further ; for it the defendant
had, as it is plain he had, all the means of information
that were requisite to enable him to discover the actual
state in which he and the Company were placed by the
deed of partnership, it is impossible for him to allege
that he acted in ignorance, or was the victim of any d-
ceit produced in obtaining those securities.
" His Lordship, after going into the evidence, showing
that the defendant was one of a committee who had in-
vestigated the whole proceedings of the company from
its commencement, and who was a party in the report
made by the committee as to the true state of the affairs
of the company, says—' I do not see
.how the defendant
can complain that he had not the means of informing
himself of the true state of the company's affairs on the
day he signed the notes in question. That it is scarcely
necessary to again repeat what I have already stated on
this point, and it is enough to add that it was utterly
immaterial to the company who had not paid for the
mines, whether they paid Levason or the eight directors.
I must say, that, taking the report into considera-
tion in all its bearings, I find no evidence whatever of
any suppression or i mposition, nor is there any such
evidence in the case.
" His Lordship then refers to the arrangement made
by the eight directors with Levason, and says—' I can
e nothing here amounting either to ignorance or im-
position.'
" His Lordship then refers to the charge that Levason
has no legal demand, and says,—' It is, therefore, not
dealing with facts as they were known to be to argue
that Levason had not a legal demand on the company.
It may, however, be enough to say that he ma !e the
d: mend, and the company in securing it did not enlarge
their pre existing obligations, or did more than agree to
pay their debts to the directors, by paying it at their in-
stance 'to Levason.'
" His Lordship; after entering very fully into the ar-
rangement which led to the signing of there notes, says
—' And I must say that in no respect am I able to dis-
cover the imposition on the defendant, or any one else in
the transactions which led to the compromise, and to the
execution of the notes.' _

"his Lordship then, after entering very fully into the
authorities in support of his judgment, concludes by
stating that it is the unanimous opinion of the Court