The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
A Court Ica, bed on Thursday for the dispatch of public
business. It sat till a late hour.

THE ITATE OF THE CITY PRISONS.

Mr. Wigs gave the following notices of motions :
"That it be referred to a Special Committee, to be appointed
bl this Court, to view and examine the prisons belonging to this
city, and to report their opinion as to the accommodation af-
forded to the prisoners, the opportunities for classification and
separate confinement, and whether there exists any necessity for
building a new prison, or enlarging or altering the existing
prisons, with a view to carrying into effect the improvements
in prison discipline which modern experience has suggested on
the subject.
" That such Committee do also inquire whether any and
what alterations are necessary to be made for the accommoda-
tion of judges, jariea, barristers, witnesses, and the public at
the Sessions House in the Old Bailey, with a view to expedite
and facilitate the administration of justice, and to save both
time and expense to the public.
" That Mr. Jehn Clark, the Clerk of the Peace for this
City, be requested to make a return to the Court of the number
of criminals tried at the Central Criminal Court during the
years 1843, 1844, and 1845, the let September in the last
year, and distinguishing the number in each year, and before
whom tried, the number of days and hours the Court sat each
session, how many Courts sat, the number of days and hours
during which the Judges appointed by this city sat, distin-
guishing each Judge by name, and the hours occupied uy each."
THE RAILWAY BUSINESS OF THE CITY.
Mr. HARTLEY, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Com-
mittee, brought up the report on the North Kent Railway
(City Extension) Bill, proesing to make a terminus
in the City of London. 'fhe report stated that the
railway was proposed to be laid down to a point between Union-
street and Peter-street in the Borough, and from that spot over
Southwark-bridge to a point at or near Thames-street; that
it was the intention to form a large depot in Southwark,
at the end of the bridge, for goods and merchandise, and that
passengers only were to be carried on the bridge. 'Fhe opinion
of the Committee was, that the proposed plan was not objec-
tionable, provided the plan and elevation should be approved
of by the Court, the existing thoroughfares be not impeded,
a sufficient road for carriages and passengers over Southwark-
bridge be preserved and maintained, and the present acclivi-
ties be not made more steep, and that proper_clauses be in-
serted in this Bill to assure all these objects.

Mr. Lorr said he regretted to be obliged to differ with the
committee, ef which he was a member; but Mr. Tile, the
architect, who attended the committee on behalf of the Com-
pany, not having produced any plan of the mode in which it
was proposed to cross the river, it was suggested that the
intention was to erect a viaduct over the present foot and
carriage-way of the bridge. Now the citizens of London pos-
sessed a noble river, which was one of the great sources of wealth
as well as a facility of commerce. He could not con-
ceive a more hideous deformity, or greater obstruction,
to light and air, than a parcel of railway buildings erected upon
the top of the Southwark-bridge-4 superstruction, for instance,
very similar to that which presented such an eyesore in the
Minories. In vain might architects design noble structures to
show the magnificent river, if they were to fall beneath the
blow of that ruthless destroyer and universal leveller, the rail.
way macia. —( Hear, hear, and murmurs. )
Sir P. Litrate said he had uniformly objected to the intro-
duction ef railroads into the City. He had made a resolute op-
position to the Blackwall Railway, and his experience had not
induced him to alter the opinion he had from the first formed.
He understood that the two railways, whose termini were pro-
posed to be made in Farringdon-street, had been abandoned.
What was the cause of that abandonment he did not know, but
it looked something like evidence of returning reason. He had
made many inquiries upon the subject of the City of London ter-
mini, and he gathered frown these inquiries, that of the 500
acres of which the City consisted, 200 would actually be occu-
pied by railway companies.—(Laughter and cries of " Hear.")
The City, with its dense population and its enormous com-
merce and traffic, was not the place for railways, and he re-
joiced to find that the projects of the Regent's Canal Railroad,
which was to have had it terminus in Aldersgate-street, as
well as the projects of the Farringdon-street plan, had been
given up. He did not care to what committee the report
should be referred for examination as to its merits ; he only
hoped, and he had confidence in that hope, that the City of
London would not be torn in pieces in order to effect what
was called improvements.— (Hear and murmurs. )
Mr. T. H. HALL said he had seen no cause to alter his
opinion, that it was inadvisable to introduce railroads into
the City. On the contrary, he was more confirmed in the
opinion which, crude as it was, he had originally expressed.
The City of London was well occupied commercially. There
might be here and there lane• mad confined places which re-
quired alteration, and were differently occupied, but the
City could not be said to be other than in every respect en-
gaged in commercial occupations, and a more complete
impediment to its traffic could not be proposed than that which
projects like the present was calculated to produce. The
proposed plan was represented in the report as unobjectionable.
He was of opinion that it was in every respect objectionable,
and that the adoption of it would place the whole of that pro-
perty at the disposal of the Company without conferring any
advantages upon the public.
Mr. PEWTRESS said the more wise course in which to pro-
ceed in the present matter was not to generalise on determining
upon its merits, but to consider it upon its simple and particular
recommendations. They aught not to be frightened by every
railroad movement with the idea that the City of London was
about to be cut up, and appropriated as one vast terminus. The
terminus projected in this particular case before the Court
would be productive of no inconvenience whatever. It would
have quite a different effect. The commerce, which it was
cornplaned would be injured, would undergo a great increase
from the numerous facilities afforded by a railroad at the very
doors of the citizen.—( Hear, hear.) The improvements in
the City would be accelerated by it. What a vast accommoda-
tion to traffic was the erection of London-bridge and the im-
provements in its approaches. The new street had greatly
added to the commercial advantages of London, especially since
the establishment of railway termini near London-bridge, thus
exhibiting evidence of mutual benefits. If the railroad over
Southwark-bridge was established, the commerce would be still
more important, and there could arise no disadvantage which
would not be far counterbalanced by the good derivable from its
vicinity to the place of active business.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Assuan said the City was destined to be a city of
warehouses, and there could be no prevention to that doom.
The Court could not help it. They must recollect that the
question now before them must go before Parliament, whether
they consented to entertain it or not. They saw the tendency
of the age, and they could not arrest the progress of improve-
ment. Their policy was, inasmuch as they could not determine
whether the terminus of the North Kent Railway should or
should not come into the City, to present no obstacle to pro-
jects supposed to be likely to cause extraordinary commercial
facilities—to offer no opposition calculated to interfere with the
advantages to the Corporation, in the event of the success of
the plan.—( Hear, hear.) They had a fund of 20,0001. a year,
to lay out in improvements, and they were to consider that
London was the centre of commerce. They must promptly at-
tend to all applications to accomplish rapid communication with
that centre of commerce ; and if they hesitated their privileges
would be subject toattack;and annihilation. They would, in fast,
be pronounced to be obstructives to improvement ; and, like
the Tories, completely swept away.—(Laughter, and cries of
" Hear, hear," and " No, no.")
Mr. R. TAYLOR said the present opposition to the railway
improvement proposed reminded him of what had taken place
when the proposal was made to build the docks. At that
period a party in the Court, unfortunately a small one, endea-
voured to prevail upon the Court to aid the petitioners in their
application to Parliament, and if the assistance required had
been rendered, the Corporation of London would new be the
proprietors of all the docks. The Court, however, refused,
and what was the consequence? The merchants and traders
want to Parliament, and represented the strong necessity which
existed, in consequence of the crowded state of the Thames.
Deputy PEACOCK presented a memorial from the president
and governors of the Corporation School for the grant of
ground in Liverpool-street for the purposes of a school-house.
Mr. Jotty Dixos opposed the petition. He stated that Sir
Aaron Rowe, who had been Lord Mayor of London, made a
present of the ground as a burial place for certain of the citi-
:sena., and so delighted was Lady Rowe with the bequest that
she directed that her body should be deposited there. It
would, then, he considered, be r sort of desecration of the
ground to turn it aside from the purposes for which it was in-
tended, and disturb the bones of Lady Rowe, by whose hus-
band it had been left in trust to the Corporation.—( Hear.)
The petition was rejected.
UNION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE CITY OF LONDON AND
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK.
The LORD MAYOR. presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of the Borough of Southwark, with the view of
accomplishing a very important object. The petition,
which was of considerable length, and recited the
various charters under which several kings granted the
town of Southwark to the citizens of London, concluded in
the following manner :—" Your petitioners, therefore, pray
that your Honourable Court will take such prompt measures as
shall seem most advisable for effectually uniting the Borough
of Southwark with the City of London, according to the in-
tentions of the charters hereinbefore referred to, and in
giving to the inhabitants of the Borough an adequate repre-
. sentation in the councils of the City ; aed that all the inha-
bitants of the Borough may have and enjoy such and the same
rights in the laws, franchises, and privileges as belong to the
citizens, resident within the City ; and that the inhabitants
exempted from all burdens, personal and pecuniary, inconsis-
tent with those rights and privileges as citizens of London;
and that your petitioners may be at liberty to attend any Com-
mittee of your Court, to whom the matter of the petition may
be referred, with such further statements and proposals, and
documentary and other evidence, as they may be advised."
Sir PETER LAURIE had no objection taisend the petition to
committee, but he knew the fate it merited would await it
wherever its merits underwent examination. After having
opposed the principle of
authority in the Borough, on the grounds stated by him at a
late Court of Aldermen, Nir Peter Laurie read the unani-
mous report made, and agreed to, during the able Town- clerk-
ship of Mr. Woodthor
accompaniedi
Pe4V advised the rejection of the pro-
position,
such reasoning as convinced the
Corporation at once ef the
keeping the
of the scheme. He
condemned the notion
. of the it the Town-hall as a refuge for
the pauper peerage
anddescribed the condition
of the City Magistrates, who vlsitei the
.Borough for the pur-
pose of dispensing justice, as ridiculous
argued, too, that if the prayer of the
. puletitthioeneelstrwemeree, toibiee
granted, it would be necessary to add to the number of Al-
dermen.
_ _

Mr. R. TAYLOR. said the citizens of London could
easily spare some of their Aldermen to the it very
(Laughter.) °rough._
Mr. WIAA WAS rejoiced to find that Sir Peter Laurie had
again classed hinsself with the Liberals, and that the
feelings of his youth were reviving in his mature generous
was glad that Sir Peter was so liberal as not to opposea the "e
ference of the petition. The petitioners, he wished it to rhea
understood, represented not the Parliamentary boundaries,
but the ancient borough. which consisted of five parishes, with
a population not exceeding 73,000 souls. The petition evinced
that the borough people desired to be incorporated with the
City, and stated that many of them were freemen of the City,
and anxious to partake of its privileges as well as bear its bur-
dens. As for the legal difficulties stated by a former able
town-clerk to stand in the Way of amalgamation, and the
adoption of that opinion by a former committee, ne might use
fashionable language, and say that was no reason why another
committee, or indeed the same committee, should not come to
a different conclusion.—(Laeghter.) He might say, as a
great statesman lately said, that he would not steer in 1846
by observations made in 1843. He might say that s'neit the
former consideration of the subjecc much new information had
been obtained as well from the Corporation records as from
other s.mirees. They had also a new town-clerk, whose anti-
quarian and legal knowledge, and whose known attachment to
ancient rights, would' materially assist them in ascertaining
Tieether the petitioners' object could be attained.h
might say, that when Southwark was annexed
to the City itself, it stood, surrounded by good stone
'walls and outward defences , but since that period four other
cities, each larger than the original one, had sprung up around
it--its population also had decreased. It was wise, therefore,
to seek to strengthen themselves by adding to the City the
borough of Southwark,
terest in defending all that giving
both varies a common in-
precious and valuable in local
self-government, and inirf?titlrisr! the encroachments of arbi-
trary to discuss the lega-
litytrary power.--( Hear.)
to do it. The ancient
of the object sought, he was
sanctioned itioned by law,
right of the City, confirmed by chartery,imen
been destroyed.
over and in the borough of Southwark,
It had been affected but in a slight degree by the Act establish-
ing the Metropolitan police; but that ,tasnotthetrue secret why

the Aldermen had discontinued their sittiiM in the Town-hall.
It was true that the chair had been for wears the refuge
for the pauper peerage of the City. On the Clo.th of the two
last pensioners, it was, as he had heard, the inteotion of the
Court to give 8002, a year to two members of the Court : but
there being no unanimity upon that subject, it was roposed
to divide the 8001. a year equally amongst the Aldermen' who
had passed the chair, but Sir Peter Laurie, who hated a pb,
and did not wish to participate in the labour, seized upon the
clause before mentioned, and the sittings in the Tuwn-hall were
discontinued.—( Laughter.) On the grounds of public policy,
and because he believed the incorporation of the borough with
the City would really strengthen the latter to accomplish many
useful objects for the benefit of themselves and the great com-
munity by which they were surrounded, he supported the
motion. The sooner Bridge Ward Without was made not a
sinecure ward, but really efficient withrepresentatives, and the
sittings of the Aldermen resumed, the better, or perhaps those
who were struggling for a participation of privileges might
apply to another quarter, and thus dissever themselves from the
City for ever.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir PETER LAURIE declared that he had actually brought
back the Aldermen to the borough after they had left it.
The petition was then referred to a committee.

LACY INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 21.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN
and a Special Jury).
FOSTER V. THE BANE OF ENGLAND.

In this ease Mr. Sergeant Shoe and Mr. Pearson ap-
peared on behalf of the plantiff, and the Solicitor-
Getieral and several other counsel for the Bank of
England. .

The allegation of the plaintiff was, that she held
I , certain stock in the Bank of England, on which she had
received various dividends from time to time, or rather
that her husband, who died in 1838, had received them,
and that she subsequently had received dividends in the
years 1839, 1840, and 1841; hut that when she applied,
after the latter periA, to sell out her stock, she was told
that her stock had been bold out in January, 1839. This
she positively denied, and therefore took au action for
the recovery of 3731 195., as the amount which she
alleged still remained in the hands of the Bank belonging
to her. She also alleged that eke applied for an in-
spection of the books of the Bauk, but was refused.
The SOLICITOR-GXMAL, on behalf of the defendants,
said he would prove by competent witnesses that on the
23d January, 1839, the plaintiff had sold out her stock,
and that her account was closed then, and that therefore
she had misinstructed her counsel. The plaintiff sued
in forma pauperis, and therefore would incur no expense
if the action went against her. She complained of
having been refused access to certain books ; but that
was done in order to:prevent fraud, and was the practice
of the Bank ; but all the books to which it was neces-
sary she should have access were offered her. A
question of idontity might arise ; but it would almost
be impossible for clerks to identify all the parties who
transfer stock, for the number was enormous during the
year—there were nearly 300,000 stock-holders, and
millions were transferred every year ; and therefore a
mark of identity was put in the book and on the warrant
at the time of transfer. That warrant would be pro-
duced, and so would Mr. Oxlay, who had identified the
plaintiff. He had been dismissed from the Bank, but
not owing to this transaction. lie (the Solicitor-
General) would now proceed to call his witnesses.
The first witness called was

Mr. G. F. Clerk, sworn—l am the principal clerk in the
New Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Annuities office. Pro-
duces a copy of the late Samuel Foster's account, and a
copy of the transfer of stock in 1838 to his wife, and
William Oxley was the person who identified the par-
ties ; Mr. Oxley had up to that time been a clerk in the
office for 87 years ; he was dismissed in June, 1141.
Produces the book, showing the sales of stock in
January, 1839, to plaintiff, and witnessed by Oxley.
Upon that occasion a lady came to me, who stated she
was Mrs. Foster, and that Mr. Oxley had sold her stock
and paid her a greater amount of interest than the
Bank paid, but that she had lost all her money; she
made the same statement to the chief accountant, and
appeared to be in great distress.
Cross-examined—Mr. Oxley had access to all the
transfer books, and he could show other books like the
transfer books, if he chose, to an illiterate person, like
tho plaintiff; he was dismissed for having absented him-
self. I have understood that his accounts with other
parties were not found to be correct.
Re-examined—There are two witnesses to the plain-
tiff's signature to the transfer, which is the practice
when the signature is a mark.
Mr. Ripen, one of the witnesses, corroborated the
%Love. In July, 1841, the plaintiff came to the Bank
and a Mr. Oxley had sold her stock.

Cl ~.ms-examined—Could not say that the party who
came in 1841. and who signed the book in 1839, were
the same party.
Re-examined—The number who come to transfer is
very great.
Mr. Durat—Was present at the transfer and wit-
nessed it ; does not know the plaintiff personally.
Mr. Oxley, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL-1
was 37 years a clerk in the Bank of England. I knew
plaintiff's husband two or three years, and herself also
for five or six years ; she attended on my mother.
I remember Mr. Foster's death, it took place in
July, 1838. Plaintiff took out administration. De-
ceased was possessed of stock in the Bank at the time
of his death. Plaintiff sold 1001. of the stock to pay
the expense of the administration. I identified her on
that occasion. I also identified her upon other occa
sions of transfer of two sums of 20/. each, and of the
2001. to herself. She afterwards applied for the balance
of 115 L, and it was transferred, and I identified them. In
about two months after she came to me and brought me
between 501. and 60/., with which I purchased stock for
her. She complained of the low rate of interest she was
receiving, and I said I could procure her higher in-
terest. She came on the 13th January, 1839, to me to
the Bank, for the purpose of selling out her stock, and
the transfer book now before me was placed before her,
and she put her mark upon it, and " Hannah Foster " was
written across it by another clerk, and I identified her.
A person named M'Neill, a stockjobber, was the party
who purchased upon that occasion. M'Neill paid the
money. After this I paid the plaintiff 10/. interest half-
yearly. I made her four such payments up to January,
1841. I left the Bank in June, 1841.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEZ—I am not
aware that she was an illiterate person. I believe she
could read. I withdrew from the Bank in 1841, and
went to Canada. I went without informing the Bank.
I lived at Chelsea before I went to Canada, with my wife
and children, and I left them there. You may call it ab-
sconding if you please. I left because I was in embar-
rassed circumstances. A Mrs. Hanby had an account at
the Bank. She had 700/. stock, and I got it. I did not
pay it to her I did not attest her identity, but
my broker did it.
Did he know her by any other way than by your
telling him 2-4 don't know. I gave her no security for
her money.
How long was that before you absconded 2—About
four or five years. I gave Mrs. Foster no security, nor
did I tell her how it was to be invested. The transaction
took place at her own apartments, and there was no
person present. Well, if you will have it, I told her I
would procure her that interest for her. It was under-
stood between us that her money would be secure. I
was insolvent at that time. I did not owe more than about
2,000/. at the time.—(Laughter.) When I paid the
plaintiff the interest I used to make her put a mark in
a small book. She did this four times before I ab-
sconde I.

Re-examined—A person receiving a dividend signs a
book mid a warrant.

To the COURT—I returned from Canada in 1842.
To Mr. Sergeant SUER-I have no been to see Mrs.
Foster since.

Mr. Swee--I am chief accountant in the Bank of
England. I recollect Mrs. Foster coming to my office
and stating that she had lost all her stock. I found that
her stock had been properly transferred, and told her
that the Bank could afford her no relief. I do not re-
collect anything of a memorial.
Cross-examined—l don't recollect that I said I could
not show the books unless the Bank got a release. I
don't recollect that the gentleman now pointed out to me
in Court called upon me for that purpose. I don't re-
collect an attoreey appl) lug to me for the purpose.
You don't recollect anything ?—I don't.—(Laughter.)
Do you recollect Mr. Oxiey?—l do.—(Laughter.) I
never saw him since his return from Canada until this
day.
Mr. Bockett, clerk in the Bank, paid the dividend to
the party whose name appeared on the warrant.
here the ease closed.

Mr. Sergeant SHED having replied,
His LORDSHIP briefly summed up, and said the ques-
tion lay iu a very narrow compass. The question was,
whether it hrel been proved to the satisfaction of the
jury that the plaintiff had transferred her stock, and that
she was aware of it ? No doubt the jury should regard
the evidence of the witness Oxley with gnat suspicion ;
but they should also consider whether they had evidence
sufficient without that of Oxley to convince them that
this transfer had been made. And here he should ob-
serve that it would be just as well for the Bank, in all
su .h transactions, to afford the fullest information pos-
sible to all partie; making such applications.
The jury retired, and in about half an hour returned
into Court with a verdict for the defendant.

ICIBB V. HERBERT

This was an action for the recover). of 2061., due by
a promissory note. The defendant did not appear, and
the jury found for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 21.
BROUNE V. EVE.
The hearing of this action, brought against the pub-
lisher of-the Globe newspaper, for an alleged libel on
the conduct and motives of the plaintiff as an active
promoter of the " British and American Colonisation
Association," commenced on Saturday, about half-past
two, and had proceeded as far as the part cross-exami-
nation of the plaintiff's first witness, 1)r. Rolph, when
Sir THOMAS WILDE said that the suggestion which
he, on behalf of the defendant, had made to the plaintiff
was just accepted, and therefore a juror might be w ith-
draw n• The terms of the suggestion, however, did not
transpire.
A juror w'as accordingly withdrawn, and the cause
terminated about three o'clock.

COUNT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb 21.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY.—AII
application was made to the Learned Commissioner to sign
an affidavit of an act of bankruptcy against a person in the
City, but whose name did not transpire. The affidavit
set forth that on the 18th inst. a creditor called at the ware-
house and made an inquiry for the party, and was told that
ho was out. On calling the next morning, deonent was in-
formed that he was out and bad gone abroad,p leaving word
that he would not return for a fortnight or three weeks. It
had, however, been ascertained that he was within when he
was called upon the first time, and that a man was in pos-
session under an execution. It was conteaded that this
amountedexec to an act of bankruptcy, and that the fact of an
being put in alone was sufficient.
o C 3111ISMONEft went through a variety of
T cases bust larne d.
, and after a consultation with the Registrar, said he did

not consider the act of bankruptcy made out—the man be-
ing in possession was not in itself sufficient—it must be shown
that at the very moment tLe party left home to go abroad
it was his intention to delay his creditors. In this case it
was shown that he said he should not be back for a fort-
night or three weeks, which might be taken that he would
return at that time, and he would not be prevented from
taking his pleasure ; the intent to delay must be more clearly
shown.

(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
COUILTS OF BANKRUPTCY AND COURTS OF REQUESTS.
—ln a case which came before this Learned Commissioner
to ei:force the judgment of the Brixton Court of Requests,
he obs:rved that the Act only gave him power where the
other Court had competent jurisdiction. It was, therefore,
necessary to prove before him that the debt was one over
which the Court laud cognizance, that the defendant resided
within the jurisdiction, and that all the forms had been duly
observed. The production of a piece of paper proved nothing ;
he must be in possession of all the facts, or he might be lay-
ing himself open to en action.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
On Saturday, Mr. John Southgaie, of Old 'Change,
appeared before the Lord Mayor and Alderman Fare-
brother to answer the complaint of Mr. Archibald
White, of Great Missenden, in the county of Bucking-
ham, gentleman, for that he (to use the words of the
summons) within the space of six months from the day
of the date hereof (14th of October), in this city, did act
as, and was a promoter of, a certain jointsstock com-
pany, to wit the Grand Junction, Great Western, and
South-Western Railway Junction Company, and that
the intention and proposal to form the said Joint-Stock
Company, did not, nor have, within one month, or sub-
sequently, after some one, or more than one, and all the
particulars required to be registered in accordance with,
and pursuant to, the statute 7th and Bth Victoria, chap-
ter 110, section 4, was, or were, decided or ascertained
and determined, return and register such particular or
particulars pursuant to the said statute, whereby he had
become liable to forfeit fur every such offence a sum not
exceeding 201.
The justice-room was, from an early hour, crowded
with provisional directors, shareholders, engineers, and
others connected with railroads, and an immense interest
was excited.
Mr. Duncan appeared for the complainant, and Mr.
Wordsworth attended on behalf of the defendant.
It is necessary to state that, previously to the passing
of the above-recited Act, many projects were advertised
ostensibly for the purpose of forming companies, but, in
reality, for the purpose of swindling the public, and that
one great object of the Act was to cheek such evil, and
amongst other great objects were the following :—To
prevent parties' names from being used in a prospectus
without their knowledge and consent, and also their
participation in the risk of the project ; and to insure
that, the Act requires each to sign a written consent and
agreement to act and share the risk, the Legislature, of
course, presuming that inasmuch as shares would not
not sell without the names of persons of wealth and in-
fluence in the prospectus, and that such persons
would not allow their names to appear in, or consent
to participate in the risk of any project which they had
not themselves ascertained to be good, the public
would have some guarantee that projects put forth with
the names of persons of wealth and influence were good.
To enable the creditors of, and persons deal-
ing with parties projecting companies to ascertain
readily, and at the same time with certainty, who were
the parties putting forth projects, and whether the en-
gineers whose names appeared on the prospectuses were
in fact acting fcr the respective companies, to enable
landowners and others, whose properties pi ojected com-
panies proposed to interfere with, to ascertain nearly
and with certainty whom they had to deal with, and to
enable them to avoid the loss they would sustain in pre-
paring for an opposition to a company, and then finding
such company to be a more bubble, and that the narevs
on the prospectus were those of fictitious persons, or of
persons ignorant of the fact that their names were on it,
and that in reality the project was never intended to be
carried out, but was merely set going to induce the
public to take a sufficient number of shares, the de-
posits on which would pay the preliminary expenses.
Many persons of wealth and influence having virtually
consented to the appearance of their names as connected
with companies, without any idea of the serious risk they
ran, and under the idea that as they signed no document
and attended no meetings, and in no way acted, they
incurred no risk, the Act intended to prevent that by-
requiring all such persons to sign such documents as
should inform them of it. The Act also required all
prospectuses, advertisements, &c., &c., to be registered
before publication to prevent projectors and companies
from issuing papers containing statements they dared not
avow, and which, after they had served the purpose of
deceiving the public, they could disavow. It likewise
aimed at preventing unscrupulous persons of wealth and
influence from conniving at the use of their names in
prospectuses, with a view if the project turned out well,
by participating in the profits, and if it turned out badly,
of avoiding responsibility by so acting as not to suffer
any evidence of their having so connived at the use of
their names to be procurable. As the gentlemen of the
bar engaged in the case were the whole of the day occu
pied in arguing upon points of law, which had no refe-
rence to the merits of the question, we give an analysis
of the statement made to the Lord Mayor by the com-
plainant himself upon applying for the summons against
the defendant and another gentleman described as one of
the promoters of the company.
Mr. White, who was on the occasion alluded to ac-
companied by a great number of individuals described as
surveyors employed upon the line, stated that the mo
tives they all had for the prosecution were to obtain from
the prosecutor's moiety of the penalty in that and simi-
lar prosecutions against other members of the provisional
committee of the company a sum sufficient to enable the
surveyors to sue the company for the money due for the
survey, amounting to about 3,0001. It was needless to
observe that of the eighty persons thus employed and
thus unrewarded, many suffered severe inconvenience.
The company's excuse for their refusal to pay was, that
the survey was not in time for going before Parlia-
ment in the present session. With the exception of a
very small part of the section the survey was complete,
and the delay of the company in having the survey
commenced, and the very gross neglect of their duties
by the engineers, especially the latter, were the real causes
of the break down, and the company sought to throw the
loss on the working surveyors. The Messrs. Dempsey,
the surveyors who took the contract, were unable to sue
the company for want of funds, and it was proposed that
they should assign the debt to trustees, for the benefit of
the parties who did the work, and that such trustees
should sue Many of these parties were in absolute want,
their homes being in Ireland, Yorkshire, and other dis
tant places, and having no money to defray their expenses
home or to enable them to stay here. If the proposed
application of the moiety of the penalty in the case should
be illegal, Mr. White would willingly devote it to the
poor-box.
Upon bearing this representation,
The LORD MAYOR told the complainant that in such a
case, to which an Act of Parliament of an extremely
complicated and unintelligible nature applied, it would be
advisable in him to employ counsel.
Mr. Wordsworth, the learned counsel for the de,
fendant, rose to object to the wording of the summons.
Ile was not urged to make the objection from any ap-
prehension that his client would sustain injury horn a
strict consideration of the merits of the case, but the act
was penal, and he was justified, as a professional man,
in taking advantange of any informality. It should, he
wished to impress upon the magistrates, be remembered
that the proceeding was instituted by an informer, who,
in case of conviction, would be entitled to a moiety of
the penalty.
Alderman RenEnnoTetnn—ls the complainant a pro-
prietor in the company ? Mr. White—No, Sir ; but I
am deeply interested. I have been diddli d out of a
great deal of money by the company.
Mr. Wordsworth said, the objection he made was upon
the face of the summons. In ordinary cases, the mode
of proceeding was by information, and informations were
required to be set out with all the particulars necessary
in an indictment. By the Act 7th and Bth Victoria,
affecting Joint-Stock Companies, proceedings by infor
mation were dispensed with ; and he contended that as
proceedings by summons were substituted, it was indis-
pensable that the offence, or the offences charged, should
be described with as much certainty in the summons as
in other cases was required in the informations. Thy
learned counsel then, at considerable length, contended
that the words " one and all the particulars rcquire 1 to
be registered, in accordance with and pursuant to the
statute," did not by any means adequately point out the
offence, and that the Act required a detail of the parti-
cultists.
Alderman FAREBROTHER presumed that the company
was abandoned 2
Mr. Wordsworth said that such was the case, because
they were nut ready at the period limited by Parliament.
Ile Assured the magistrates that the Company was rt boots
fide concern, and no bubble.
Mr. Duncan contended that the summons sufficiently
described the offence with which the defendant was
charged. There were several charges, all of which
could be proved. There was no registration of the
company, no registration of the names or occupations
of the promoters, and, in fact, the case was overwhelmed
with instances of the violation of the Act of Parliament
The LORD MAYOR and Alderman FAREBROTHER
decided that the summons sufficiently described the
offence or offences with which the defendant was charged.
Mr. Duncan then briefly stated the case of the com-
plainant, and declared that it was evident that not one
of the essentials required by the Act as to registration
had been performed.
Mr. Wordsworth here produced a register, which
purported to be signed by Mr. Smith, who was desig-
nated as the registered solicitor of the company,
which, it appeared, had changed its name twice, and
made some alteration in the line of road each time. It
was admitted that Mr. Smith had signed himself as the
registered solicitor by mistake, and both counsel de-
clared that not the slightest blame was attribteable to
that gentleman, whose respectability was unques-
tionable.
Mr. Wordsworth said he would satisfy the magistrates
as to the correctness of the registration by the evidence
d
r.
ocfoMww p ste.osser.agp:eraopTncioadui yncecoedidrl, by e
were
esht
eadußutl•registraryarids ou of Trade.
r aovdfi
ez. Jointthe
The S
pt
two
dro-
vinseinonal resister of the Trunk Union. Railway, and a le
turn of the names, business, and addresses of the pro-
moters. It was not usual to grant news- certificate' s of
the
oldregistration,registers.bu There alterations
\va
swearne
anal
alteration
f required, in
which was
18th
of September, as appeared by the booirtsa,tionnw
entry by a party acting for the company, of eth was
an
of George Smith, Golden-square. The alteration
from the Trunk Union Railway to the Grand Junction,
Great Western, and South-Western Railway Company.
On the 23d of September appeared an entry of the change
from the latter name to that of the Grand Junction and
Great Western Railway Company.
Cross-examined by Mr. Duncan—When a change was

- rr"

• -•-