The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-07 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO.—The Master of the Rolls
gave judgment in the case of " Fenwick v. Wood."
On the 28th April, 1866, a gentleman desired his brother
to purchase certain shares inthe bank of Overend, Gurney,
and Co., and that purchase was effected and the money
paid. The transfer of the shares was executed on the
15th May, 1866, but that transfer was not signed. The
bank became insolvent on the very day of the execution of
the transfer, and the question at present was whether the
vendor was liable. His lordship was of opinion that the
shares were the property of the transferee, who was liable
but he must be indemnified by the vendor.
THE GREAT ROBBERY OF JEWELLERY.—George Mackin-
tosh, who was convicted last sessions for receiving three
Eapes, stolen from the shop of Mr. Grunehann, of
dgware-road, was brought up at the Middlesex Sessions
for judgment. At the trial it was proved that the
prisoner had been for years a most notorious receiver of
stolen property, and some articles of jewellery, part of
very extensive robberies of jewellery, one of them in the
house of Mrs. Hanes, Bond-street, the celebrated singer,
had been found. The sentence upon the prisoner was
that he be kept in penal servitude for fourteen years.
STOCK BROKERS AND STOCK "PURCHASERS.—Lord
Romilly gave judgment in a cause in which the
point involved was whether a vendor, having been placed
on the list of contributories to Overend, Gurney, and Co.,
was entitled to indemnity when shares had been delivered
to, and accepted by a purchaser, the purchase money
paid, but the transfer never executed. The
company stopped payment on the very day of the
transfer, but no fraud was alleged. His lordship held
that according to the rules of the Stock Exchange the
vendor had got rid of his liability, and was therefore en-
titled to indemnity from the purchaser.
BANKS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS.—I/1 a cause heard
before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. M. James, in
which the London and South Western Bank was plaintiff,
and a gentleman named Stocker, the defendant, two
somewhat important points of law arose ; first,
whether, in the event of a bill being drawn,
and the acceptance forged, the injured person
could sue for the amount without prosecuting the
offendor for felony ; and secondly, whether the bank was
entitled to a first claim upon title deeds which had been
deposited in respect of a prior advance. His Honour de-
cided in the negative on the latter point, but thought
there was no evidence to establish the former, though if
there had been he did not conceive that it would have the
slightest effect upon the security, the debtor being liable
upon the endorsements and upon the deeds.
AN UNKNOWN BENEFACTOR.— The will of Horatio
Ward, of Regent's Park, an American gentleman, who
died in 1867, has occasioned a suit in Vice Chancellor
Stuart's Court. He left 100,000 dollars to the Soldiers and
Sailors' Home, at Washington, and a similar sum to other
asylums for hildren orphaned by the war, and 19,000
dollars to the daughters of the late Henry Morris, of
Philadelphia, observing that probably they would be sur-
prised to receive a legacy from a person they had never
heard of. The reason for the bequest was that Mr.
Morris in early life had shewn some kindness to the
testator, and that the ladies had met with reverses. The
dispute was as to the shares which certain institutions
were entitled to under the will, and the questions were
decided by the Vice-Chancellor.
THE BRIDGWATER ELECTION.—The case of the " Queen
v. Buttle " has come before the court for the consideration
of the Crown cases reserved. On the inquiry before the
commissioners, Buttle admitted that he he had stated what
was false, and had received £lO for his vote. By the
commissioners' directions the prisoner was prosecuted for
perjury. Is was urged that the evidence having been
obtained of compulsion by the threat of imprisonment
was not admissible against the prisoner himself, and the
court supported this view and quashed the conviction. in
the course of the examination Mr. Justice Blackburn said
he believed the people of Bridgwater had become so
demoralised by bribery that they thought nothing of
committing perjury. There were many persons who gave
evidence before him that he would not believe.

ATTEMPTED SUICIDES.—The disorderly inhabitants of
the low districts in East London do not appear to find
their reckless lives very enjoyable. Three persons were
in one day charged at the Thames Police Court with at-
tempting to commit suicide. One of them was a smith,
who had lost a good situation, probably through drink, as
he had been drinking at the time he leaped into the
Thames. He was saved with great difficulty. Another
case was that of a woman who cut her throat. She also
said that drinking had made her wish to destroy
herself. The third was also a woman, and
tried drowning. Another miserable creature, a
resident of " Tiger Bay," St. George's-in-the East, sue_
ceeded in drowning herself from the Old Gravel-lane-
bridge of the London Docks. A fifth victim influenced by
drink, attempted suicide from the New Gravel-lane-
bridge, while yet another flung herself from a second
floor window, and was seriously injured.

LIABILITY OF AN EXECUTRIX FOR SHARE CALLS.—The
late Sir David Baird was the owner of twenty shares in
the Agriculturist Cattle Insurance Company, and some
years after his death the company sought to place Lady
Baird, his executrix, on the list of contributories in re-
spect of £lOO per share, the concern being then in course
of liquidation. In the Rolls Court, judgment was
given as to the liability of Lady Baird. Lord Romilly
pointed out that in general law the liability of a
partner ceased on the termination of the partnership,
and that that principle was applicable in all share trans-
actions, unless a special contract created an inconsistent
element. In the transfer of shares it would be absurd to
attempt to make both the transferee and transferor liable
for debts incurred subsequently to the transaction. Death
put an end to the interest of the deceased and his sur-
vivors, unless a new personal interest were created ; and
his lordship held, consequently, that Lady Baird was not
liable to the claim which had been made upon her. It
was stated that this decision would affect the company to
the extent of £lO,OOO, and intimated that an appeal would
be instituted.

LITIGATION WITH A VENGEANCE. —ln the cause of
Stretton v. The Great Western and Brentford Railway
Company, heard on Monday, some strange disclosures were
made. In 1856 the Great Western Company were de-
sirous of extending their system to Brentford, and of con-
structing docks at that place. To that end, the Parlia-
mentary pqwers having been obtained, it became neces-
sary to pass through a field an undefined portion of which
belonged to the plaintiff. In consequence of the plain-
tiff's lukewarmness, the company proceeded with
their works without deciding upon the extent of the
plaintiff's land, or the amount of compensation to be
paid. On the completion of the railway the plaintiff
levied an execution, the ludicrous plan adopted by the
Sheriff's officer being to place a cord across the line— an
obstacle which was, of course. removed at the passing of
the first train. This proving ineffectual, the plaintiff's
interest in the land was subsequently arrived at
by an expensive law process ; but in spite of
this, the amount of compensation had never
been fixed upon. Thirteen years elapsed, and though
litigation was carried on in the meantime, and the company
made a definite offer of compensation, plaintiff now ap-
plied for an injunction against the railway authorities. The
Vice-Chancellor characterised the proceed ng of both parties
as monstrous, and said the demand was founded on injus-
tice, and was contrary to law. The bill was dismissed
with costs.

THE CHASSEPOT RIFLE.—An application has been
made to the Lord Chancellor that the great seal might bo
affixed to letters patent for improvements in breech load-
ing guns and cartridges made by M. Manceaux, an eminent
gunmaker in Paris on, the famous Chassepot rifle. The
application was opposed by M. Lebaron, a gunmaker of
Caen, on the ground that a prior patent for the same
invention, had been granted in this country to one of his
agents. It was contended that as M. Lebaron
had not opposed the grant to M. Manceaux
before the Attorney-General his opposition could
not be allowed at this stage of the proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor said the inconvenience of allowing
opposition at the Great Seal, where the parties had not
come before the law officer to oppose, was very great, and
in future he should make such objectors pay the costs of
the hearing, unless fraud on the part of the petitioner
were proved. In this case he should make an order
referring the matter to the law officer. Both parties being
foreigners, they must give security for costs.

THE ROBBERY AT MR. BEAUMONT'S.—The great Picca-
dilly robbery has again engaged the attention of - Marl-
borough-street Police-court. Henry William Frankland,
of Compton-street, general dealer, and Joseph Wilson,
painter, of King-street, Long Acre, have been charged
with being concerned in the burglary at Mr. Beaumont's,
when jewellery to the amount of £lO,OOO was stolen. Mr.
Lewis said he could offer little additional evidence be-
yond statements made by the prisoners, but he hoped at
the end of another week to put matters in a different
light. The evidence consisted chiefly of charges
made by the prisoners against a man named Mackin-
tosh, who has been tried for receiving stolen property.
Mr. Knox after going over the evidence at some length,
said he could not divest his mind of the impression that
the language deposed to as having been used by the pri-
soners was inconsistent with their innocence, and unless
he believed the sergeant guilty of perjury, it certainly
was strange they should directly after being taken into
custody have made accusations regarding Mackintosh,
who was in custody for receiving stolen property. What
he would do was this. He would grant another remand,
but on the next occasion he would hold Mr. Lewis bound
to produce substantial evidenee, and if he did not then
mend his case he would not give any promise. He felt it
right that he should also state that he hadgranted a search
warrant in the case, and that the house had been searched
but nothing had come of it. The prisoners were then re-
manded.