The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

had been agreed to at a general meeting of the share-
holders.
It appears that in consequence of some dissatisfaction,
the meeting was subsequently held or. the 7th of August,
and was adjourned until the 20th of the same month, and
it was unanimously agreed at that meeting that new
trustees should be elected. A meeting was then held on
the sth of October last, when it was resolved that im-
mediately such election was made those persons who
then acted as trustees, as well as the treasurer, should
hand over all property and effects they held, ex
officio, to the trustees appointed by the subscribers.
The defendants refused to accede to the resolution in
question, and alleged that the same had not been
taken by ballot, and that the proceedings were in
other respects informal. The Act of Parliament
was to the effect that when a majority of sub-
scribers decided upon changing the trustees, that those
who then held trust should give up the funds in their
bands to those who should be appointed to succeed
them. Due notice had been given, and all the requisi-
tions of law had been complied with. The petition also
prayed for the costs of a former petition in the suit.
Mr. Russell and another counsel appeared for the
petitioners, and Mr. Wigram for respondents.
His HONOUR deferred judgment.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
CONSPIRACY.—THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. JANES
BUTTON AND OTHERS.
This case was resumed at the sitting of the Court this
morning. It was an indictment for conspiracy, at the
instance of Mr. Lewis, an extensive dyer of Oxendon-
street, Haymarket. The defendants are James Button,
George Button. his son, Thomas Corduroy, and William
Wellesford. They were all in the prosecutor's employ-
ment. Some of them, especially James Button, had
been for a number of years. The prosecutor allowed
those in his employment to dye articles for themselves
and their immediate relatives free of expense. Instead
of simply availing themselves of this privilege, they took
advantage of it to carry on " jobbing " for their indivi-
dual profit, to the serious injury of the prosecutor.
A considerable number of witnesses were called in
support of the case for the prosecution. Some of them
are at present employed iu the works of the prosecutor,
and some of them had been discharged on account of the
" jobbing" in question. The evidence adduced went to
show that the practice had been carried on to some
extent, and that "jobs" were done through the per-
mission of the first-named defendant, who was the
foreman, and who, it was stated, must have been per-
fectly aware that the articles which the defendants and
others in the establishment brought to dye could not
belong to them or to any of their relatives. Most of the wit-
nesses called to prove fraud on the part of the defendants
admitted that they had dyed articles at the prosecutor's
works for profit, and that they had treated James Button
to drink in consequence. The two Buttons, it appeared,
had carried on this kind of " jobbing" to a much greater
extent than the other defendants, in consequence of the
facilities which they possessed. An understanding, it
appeared, subsisted between the whole of the defendants,
and that all caryied on business on their own account, at
the expense of Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN addressed the jury on behalf of
Button, and contended that the evidence adduced did
not justify the charge brought against James Button.
He could not, however, justify the acts of the son.
There could be no doubt, notwithstanding many asser-
tions to the contrary, that the business of the prosecutor
was conducted in a very irregular manner, and that ad-
vantage had been taken of this by those he employed.
Nothing had been adduced to show that James
Button had done more than he was permitted to do by
Mr. Lewis. If George Button and tke other defendants
had taken advantage of the defendant, and used him
as an instrument through whom they might defraud Mr.
Lewis, they ought not to inflict punishment upon him,
but, considering that he was an old man, and that he had
been 34 years in the service of the firm, to give him the
benefit of the evidence in his favour.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and ex-
plained the law to the jury. He said it was for them to
say whether the three defendants, or any two, or even one
of them, were guilty of the charges imputed to them.
They could find one of them guilty, because one might
conspire with other persons not named in the indictment.
The jury, after a short consultation, found all the de-
fendants guilty of the conspiracy imputed to them.
Corduroy was recommended to mercy by the jury on
account of the example set him by the Buttons, al-
though they entertained no doubt of his delinquency.
The defendants will not receive the sentence of the
Court until next term.