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

RENT VALLEY CONTINUATION

RAILWAY.

Several Manchester shareholders in this contemplated line
being dissatisfied with the proceedings of the directors, a
meeting was held yesterday at the London Tavern, at the
instance of John Collier, Esq., chairman of the Manchester
Sub-Committee, Francis Deflinne, Esq., one of the same
body, and Thomas Carlisle Esq., of Hyde-park-place.
The Committee of Management issued a counter advertise-
ment, stating their intentions to call a meeting, after the
provisions of the Bill for dissolving railway companies should
be ascertained. Some little time elapsed after the hour
bad passed for which the meeting was called before the pro-
ceedings commenced. After that lapse it was moved that
Thomas Carlisle, Eaq., take the chair, but that gentleman
declined on the plea of a severe cold, and, on his motion,
James Troup, Esq., was called upon to preside.
The Cam/mug stated that he was but little accustomed
to preside at public meetings, but he was ready to hear any
gentleman, and having read the advertisement calling the
meeting,
F. DEFLINNZ, Esq., stated that the chief objection of the
shareholders to the conduct of the directors arose from the
intention of that body to amalgamate Yr ith the Shropshire
Union Company, the London and Dublin Approximation
Company, and the Shropshire Mineral Company, part of
which Companies were well known to the proprietors pre-
sent. The proceedings, however, of this day would be much
modified by the fact that the directors had issued an adver-
tisement, stating that they intended to call a meeting as
soon as the provisions of the Government Bill for dissolving
railway companies should be known. But there were very
suspicious circumstances connected with the investment of
the funds, and it appeared, that in order to meet the pro-
visions of that Act the directors had been largely engaged in
buying up shares, and one auctioneer had been engaged to
buy all the shares he could obtain at 30s. a share, and several
had been purchased at 15s. discount, and others at 17s. 6d. a
share. If this course were pursued, it would be
evidentthatthis
the shareholders would be swamped. The object
meeting was to answer any question that might
be asked.
A SHAREHOLDER suggested that it would be well to
as-
certain what proportion of shares had been taken up by the
directors. This was the more necessary as the shares came
out at a premium.
Mr. Dzslannu—TheY Fame out at 5/. premium.
The Sn HOLDER wished then to know what had been
paid upon. He had applied for information, but could obtain
none.
Mr. JOHNSON NEALE said that he had replied to the
letter which was addressed to them.
Mr. JAMES RICHARDSON wished to know whether Mr.
Dedhane was about to move a resolution ?
The CHAIRMAN stated that Mr. Deflinne had stated/ that
he was ready to answer any questions, and that he was ready
to submit a petition for signature.
Some conversation then ensued as to the real object of the
meeting, as several strangers had just entered the room, and,
The CHAIRMAN having again read the advertisement, said,
that the gentleman who had convened the meeting '3 to,
was ,
make a report, the materials of which they had not
able to obtain, and they were ready, therefore, to submietena
petition for the signatures of the members present.
After some further conversation, the object of which was
to elicit the names of some particular directors, which Mr.
• Deflinne refused to give,
The CHAIRMAN thought that gentleman ought to be heard
to the end of his statement.
Mr. DEFLINNE then read the petition which had been pre-
pared, and which was intended to be presented to the House
of Commons, with a. view to give greater efficiency to Lord
Dalhousie's Bill, the purport of which was, that the directors
had taken originally five-eighths. of the whole of the shares of
the company ; that on the 16th of April last year the others
had come out at 51. premium, on which a deposit of IL 7s. 6d.
had been paid. On the 4th of October a further deed was
prepared, by which it appeared that the directors had agreed
to take up the whole of the shares which it was incumbent
upon them,
but had actually taken up only one-eighth of
that quantity. The petition still further stated that its ob-
ject was to prevent a winding up, of the Company without
an investigation of the conduct of the directors.
Mr. DEFLISNI then moved the adoption of that petition,
but it roinaieed without a seconder; and a Shareholder then
moved that the meeting adjourn till after the meeting which
the directors intended to call, which was seconded ; but a
further con:er=ation ensued, from which it appeared that
this was the desire of the meeting,„ with the addition that
an opinion should ly3 expressed, that the committee of share-
holdel s ought to have an opportunity of investigating the
papers and accounts.
Mr. Sor.omoN then moved an adjournment for a fortnight,
or three weeks.

Mr. JAMES then inquired whether any report had been
issued from the Trent Valley. office.
Mr. DEFLINNE said there had been no such report.
Mr. JA3D./1 moved a resolution, which he was putting i:to
writing, when
Mr. JOHNSON NEALE said that he had come there to give
all the information lie possessed respecting the Company,
and he was the more desirous of doing so, because
he was anxious to refute a slander wich had ap-
peared in the Moininy chronicle, lie believed in the
report of a statement made by Mr. Deflinne, which
went to the effect of saying that be had sold the in-
terests of the Company. Mr. Neale then went into an ex.
planation of hi 3 conduct, which appeared to be perfectly
satisfactory that it had been in every way honourable. In
this statement it was shown that the Staffordshire Junction
had offered to abandon the Welsh part of their line, and to
give 15,000/. to take up .all the dropped shares; and with
respect to the Shropshire Mineral Amalgamated Company
equal advantages were proffered ; and on Mr. Neale's motion,
at a meeting of the directors, it was decided that the share-
holders should be called together in order to effect the amal-
gamation, but from that meeting the Manchester shareholders
had refrained from attending Such was the case, yet at a
susequent perliitt those gentlemen had openly expressed
their disapprobation of the proceeding, and it was
not to be.„Wondered at that after this the direc-
tors did not: work well with the Manchester com-
mittee:4 As -regarded the opportunity of investigating the
accounts, a meeting had been held on the 23d of January,
since which time th committee had enjoyed ample opportu-
nities of seeing them, but, in their corp 'rate capacity, until
the three weeks afterwards, when, by their own conduct; they
had precluded themselves frora- this benefit.
In reply to an inquiry, Mr. NEALE mud he believed that
therewast but little difference between the two deeds alluded
to, though he could not recollect precisely their terms; but
still he could say, from recollection, that he had been obliged
to hunt threngli them both.
Mr. DEFLINNE was about to reply to Mr. .Neale's remark
on slander, and stated that he bad been informed by a
large shareholder, but after some confusion lie refused to
give the name, and the previous queStion was moved,
but Mr. Deflinne persevered, and proceeded to read a letter,
requesting his attendance in London to prevent amalgama-
tion with the companies alluded to. The letter as:nibed
great blame to Mr. Neale; it was dated Carlton Club, and
signed 11. Y. Gibbs.
The whole of this affair
.seerned'to be disapproved of by
the bulk of the meeting, and Mr. Neale, after requesting the
note, warned Mr. Deflinne to retain the note, and to produce
it on a future day.
The resolution for the adjournment was then put, when
Mr. FIELD begged to know whether in the course of his
investigation of the accounts Mr. Neale discovered any rea-
son for the directors dissolving the Company, to Vritich that
gentlemen replied that it depended upon whether the Com-
pany would put up with the losses already incurred.—(Loud
cries of " Dissolve, dissolve.")
Mr. CARLISLE said he was quite ready to take the money
which he could obtain from the directors, and he repudiated
any responsibility on account of the adjourned meeting.
Mr. FIEbD then inquired whether it was Mr. Neale's legal
opinion that the whole of the money could be recovered from
the Directors, to which. that gentleman replied that he should
not attempt any such process.
Mr. FIELD their moved that the resolution be amended so
as to state that the Directors having expressed their inten-
tion to call a meeting, that this meeting do now adjourn.
Mr. siLttv (of Huddersfield) expressed his approbation of
the amended resolution, and stated that he had the other day
seen Mr. Churchill, wbo had given him every opportunity of
investigating the books and accounts of the company, and he
believed that those gentlemen were highly honourable. -
The motion was then carried almost unanimously.
On the motion of Mr. YATES, seconded by Mr. SoLomox,
a motion was also almost unanimously carried, expressing
the thanks of the shareholders for that gentleman's assist-
ance, and their confidence in his honour.
Mr. NEALE briefly replied, thanks were voted to the
Chairman, and the meeting separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 23.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GATHERCOLie, CLERK, V. MIALL.
This was an action for libel preferred by the plaintiff, the
Rev. Mr. Gat hercole, against the defendant who is the proprie-
tor of the Nonconformist newspaper, and was tried at the late
assizes at Cambridge before Mr. Baron Parke, when a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff—damages 200/. The circum-
stances of the case, it may be remembered, were the composi-
tion and publication of certain severe strictures in the
Nonconformist newspaper, relative to observations made in al
charity sermon by the reverend plaintiff in the parish church
of Chatteris, :in the Isle of Ely, to the effect that he would
exclude Dissenters from a participation in the lipids of the
charity, en the ground of of their not belonging to the Church
f Chrisint. have been so recently and so fully re-
ported",detailed. ne gun
of
fttrt it will not be necessary now to give
Sir Tuomais Vcr-
rhe verdict ahould noirara.°. ved for a rule to show cause why
17,.elliget aside, and a new trial had on the
ground of the &dm'
evidence which, ought not to
have been admitted, an:f
Counsel 'adverted at great rtrirtecto he evThideentaearnsuedb-
=Wed at the trial, yes
'which was submitted to thegj ?Ftilteinag tilthee Mme ,
at. Chatteris,
as that sent down to the reZsiiitag oor!t and contended that this circ
evidence altogether, for the paper t tloie the
nce invalidated the
reading-room ought to have been produced.
condemned the doctrine laid down by the Leana. ed Juadt
4 Parke) at the trial, that a sermon preached by a ministerg
lo his congregation was not a legitimate subject for
public comment, for if that was the case it would
be conceding a privilege to clergymen which was not given
to judges, advocates, or any other public men, and would be
a refusal to the public to take notice of any remarks which
might materially affect their interests. Public charity
was of the very last importance, and the public
Lad a right to inquire into and observe upon anything that
had a reference to it. And when, as in the present cam,
an attempt was made by a clergyman to exclude Dissenters
from participation in charitable funds, OR the ground of
their religious principles, he contended that sectarianism
was a legitimate subject for public comment.
The enunciation of the contrary doctrine to
the jury before whom the case was tried was a misdirection,
and alone aftbrded grounds for granting the present motion.
Under all the circumstances, he submitted that he showed
evtlieient grounds why the Court should grant the rule.
The. I,(eim CHIEF BARON said that everything that affected
the public might be commented or, provided only that truth
was made the basis and justice the superstructure of the ob-
scrvations. lie thought that a sermon made by a pastor to
his congsegation was a fair subject fjr continent, but
it must be commented on with truth and justice.
With regard to the sermon referred to the remarks of Baron
Parke could not have effected the issue, as the sermon had
not been given in evidence. lie was of opinion also that the
evidence submitted to the jury was evidence which ought to
have been admitted. He, therefore, thought the rule should
be refused.
Barons At UP
.ththe „eser and IT.OLFE concurred in opinion
Lord Chief Baron relative to the admission of
evidence and did not think sufficient ground had been shown
for a new trial.
Mr. Baron PARKE reiterated the op
° inion which he ex
pressed on the trial in reference
t 0 a sermon preached by
a clergyman to his cenwegation not a
timeie case woulditimate sub-
be
ject for, colitmm aft:. Trl4sermon was
printed liclitre.
Tlielrule-rfas according ,
ise - veited great/im
beinft filletri4l2,persoiks. :Oesk
appllF4tibli. ;4i t,

Mused
terest, every part of the Court
to hear the result of the

ipvtlietiry€o. N., and the Marchionoft of
I trailtri.an s Hotel yesterday from Efford

HiM6
/foul