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

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 for 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 check 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 for tho respective companies, to enable
landowners and others, whose properties projected 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 mere bubble, and that the names
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
4 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
tires 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 5,000/. 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.
Upcn hearing 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.
He was not urged to make the objection from any ap-
prehension that his client would sustain injury from 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 FAREBROTHER—Is the complainant a pro-
prietor in the company ? Mr. White—No, Sir ; but I
am deeply interested. I have been diddled 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 cut 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. The
learned counsel then, at considerable length, contended
that the words " one and all the particulars required 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-
culars.
Alderman FAREBROTRER presumed that the company
was abandoned ?
Mr. Wordsworth said that such was the case, because
they were not ready at the period limited by Parliament.
lle assured the magistrates that the Company was a bona
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 hero 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-
dared that not the slightest blame was attributable 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
of witnesses, and called
_ _

Mr. George Taylor, assistant-registrar of Joint-Stock
Companies, appointed by the Board of Trade. The two
documents produced were duly issued, viz., the pro-
visional register of the Trunk Union Railway, and a re
turn of the names, business, and addresses of the pro-
moters. It was not usual to grant new certificates of
registration, but alterations were made, if required, in
the old registers. There was an alteration on the 18th
of September, as appeared by the books, in which was an
entry by a party acting for the company, of the name
of George Smith, Golden-square. The alteration was
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 thechange
from the latter name to that of the Grand Junction and
Great Western Railway Company.
Cross -examined by Mr. Duncan—When a change was
made in a company, either one of the promoters or the
registered solicitor to the company attended.
Mr. George Smith stated that he had been solicitor to
Mr. Davy, the projector of the Trunk Union Railway,
who died in November. The alterations in the register
had been done by witness or his clerk.
Cros-examined—The Trunk Union Railway Company
was commenced and was intended to be proceeded with,
but was merged in the Grand Junction, &c. They were
essentially the same company.
Here a question arose as to whether the document
produced was such a one as could be considered a bona
jide register.
___

Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, said that the difficulty
which presented itself was simply this : that the Act of
Parliament authorised a solicitor, who was duly regis-
tered as such, to take all the necessary steps required
by the statute, instead of the promoter : but in this case
the solicitor .had taken upon himself the alteration in
the style of the company without having complied with
the provisions of the Act by being himself first regis •
tered as the solicitor.

Mr. Duncan said he would waive any advantages
which might accrue to his client upon that point, feel-
ing confident that he could stand upon the merits of
the case.

Mr. Goodman—lf that be waived, then surely the de-
fendant has complied with the Act of Parliament, for
he produces a certificate of registration, by the name of
the Trunk Union Railway, and a certificate that a proper
return has been made of the name, business, and de-
scription of the promoter; also proof that the name of
that company has been altered to the Grand Junction,
_
Great Western, and bouth-Western Railway Company,
that such alteration has been duly registered, and that
the two companies are evidently the same.
csoami dm ti ht t
ea td he
or coo uml t
tne od
at Aalllr.seAoldthearntiaannyFitentEith
nad°TbleEenn

by the defendant, from which any improper motive
could be inferred.

The LORD MAYOR stated that the Act of Parliament
was in itself replete with difficulties, and the wording of
the section upon which the summons had been issued
was so incomprehensible, that he thought it better that
the case should stand over for a week, when he would be
prepared to give the decision.
The case lasted till late in the evening.
CROYDON.
_ __ _

On Saturday Mr. Edward Bilson, an inspector of the
P division of police, attended before Messrs. Adams,
Sutherland, Lucas, Barclay, and Simson, at the Town-
hall, Croydon, to answer a charge preferred against him
by a- man named Weston, who was formerly a sergeant
in the same division, of having been drunk while in the
execution of his duty on the morning of Sunday, the
30th November, and also with tossing for brandy and
water in a public-house, and abusing the landlady.
An inquiry into the same subject has been for some
time in progress by. the Commissioners of Police,
anonymous letters having been sent to them, in which
a variety of charges, of a very serious nature, were made
against the inspector, and they eventually sent the
whole matter before the magistrates ; one ground for
their doing so being that the evidence they had obtained
was so contradictory, and the witnesses prevaricated so
much, that they could makenothing of them, and, there-
fore, they wished the Bench to make a full inquiry.
Mr. R. Russell of Croydon, attended in support of the
charge, and Mr. Robinson, an attorney, appeared for tho
defendant. Mr. Robinson, the superintendent of the
division, attended to watch the proceedings on behalf of
the Commissioners of Police.

George Weston, the complainant, deposed, that in
November last he was a sergeant iY the P division of
police, under inspector Bilson, and on the night of the
29th of November, he was on duty with him, and
according to his directions he went to the Bricklayers'
Arms public-house, where the defendant said he would
come to him. After waiting there some time he went
to another public-house, called the New Inn, where he
found the inspector very drunk. They went away from
that house to the Bricklayers' Arms, the inspector being
at the time very drunk; and while they were standing at
the bar the inspector challenged two persons who were
standing there to toss for brandy and water, and he
did eventually toss with them, and they had five or six
glasses of brandy and water, three of which the in-
spector lost. He also said that the landlady asked him
to pay two shillings for two of the glasses of liquor, and
he refused to pay her, and made use of very foul language
to her. This all took place at two o'clock on Sunday
morning ; and he said the inspector was so drunk at the
Bricklayers' Arms, that he could not stand or keep him-
self upright without leaning against the door-post ; and
he had very great difficulty in getting him home to the
station.

The witness underwent a very severe cross-examina-
tion from the inspector's attorney, and he admitted that
he made no complaint of this occurrence until more than
two months after he represented it to have taken place,
and that he at first refused to give any statement in
writing ; and it turned out, after a good deal of fencing
with the questions put to him, that he made no com-
plaint at all until he had been himself suspended, and
subsequently dismissed from the police, upon the report
of Inspector Bilsna, for borrowing money from publicans
and from constables in his division. Ile likewise ad-
mitted that he had been before broke and reduced to the
rank of a private constable for misconduct, and that
he had been charged with receiving money im-
properly, and that he was once, while engaged as
a constable, sentenced by Mr. Twyfor to a
month's imprisonment in the House of Correc-
tion, for receiving money from the keeper of an im-
proper house, against whom he held a warrant ; but the
sentence was not carried out by reason of its being as-
certained that the complaint had not been made within
the period specified by the Police Act, and therefore he
was set at liberty, but dismissed from the police, and he
then commenced an action against Mr. Twyford, and
soon after this he was again re-instated as a police-con.
stable, and appointed to the P division.
Mr. Robinson pressed the complainant to state
whether he was not re-appointed, after the occurrence
before Mr. Twyford, upon the condition that he should
abandon the action he had commenced against that gen-
tleman?—The complainant denied that he had any such
understanding, and said that Sir James Graham insti-
tuted an inquiry into the matter, and was so satisfied
with his character and conduct, that he ordered him to
be re-instated as a constable.
Mr. Robinson inquired whether after this the action
which had been commenced was not immediately aban-
doned?—The complainant replied that it was.
Mr. ADAMS said he did not think they ought to go
into such an inquiry as this. It appeared quite clear that
he had brought as action against Mr. Twyford, and that
after he was re-appointed as constable, he abandoned
that action ; it was hardly necassary to inquire any fur-
ther into that matter.

In answer to further questions, the complainant ad-
mitted that he had been reported several times for mis-
conduct, and the only reason ho gave for not having
made this charge before was, that he did not wish to
hurt the inspector.
Some witnesses were then called with a view to corro-
borate the testimony of the complainant, but although
some of them spoke to the fact of the tossing taking
place, they contradicted each other in many material
particulars, some of them stating that the inspector was
quite drunk when he left the New Inn, and others that
he was perfectly sober. It likewise appeared that some
of the witnesses, when they were questioned by the
superintendent upon the subject, had positively declared
that the inspector did not toss or misconduct himself at
all on the night in question, and that they had
no complaint to make against him. It was also
shown that the reason why Mr. Bilson went
to the New Inn at all on this night was, that he was
sent for on account of a robbery having taken place
there, and that he afterwards went to the Bricklayers'
Arms, to see if there were any lodgers of suspicious cha-
racter staying there.
Mr. Robinson, ou behalf of the defendant, urged upon
the bench that there was no foundation for the charge
against him, and that it had been trumped up by the
sergeant out of revenge at his having been the cause of
his dismissal.

The superintendent of the division was then examined,
and he deposed to the contradictory statements made by
the witnesses, and said that one of them declared to him,
calling God at the same time to witness what be said,
that no tossing or misconduct whatever took place on
the night in question. He also gave the defendant an
excellent character for the period he had belonged to his
division.
Two sergeants, who were on duty at the police-sta-
tion on the night in question, which they remembered
particularly on account of the circumstance of the rob-
bery, one of the patrol, and a constable, who was on
duty at the time, were then examined, and they swore
that Mr. Bilson was perfectly sober at the time in
question.
After a short deliberation, Mr. ADAMS said the magis-
trates were unanimously of opinion that this charge
should be dismissed, and the reason for their conferring
together was not because they entertained any doubt as
to the propriety of their decision, but whether they
ought not at the same time to give their opinion as to
the conduct of the persons who had come forward in
support of the charge. He must say, that after listen-
ing to the material contradictions and discrepancies
in their testimony, it was impossible to place reliance
on what they stated ; and to say the least of it, there
appeared to be an association of a most extraordinary
on
sober,t he night
and
he
en
nature for the purpose of getting up this charge. Be
and his brother magistrates were unanimously of opi-
nion, that there was no foundation for it, and they were
question, the
would add,
from what the bench had seen of hia conduct, that he
was a very zealous and excellent officer.
inspectorlikwise of
was opinion perftehctalt
;

ATTEMPTED MURDER OF A
POLICE-CONSTABLE AT DEPTFORD.
During the whole of Saturday the towns of Greenwich
and Deptford were in a state of excitement, from its
having been reported that a murder had been attempted
upon a police-constable of the name of Hastie, in a retired
part of Deptford. The rumour was that he had been set
upon by four men, in consequence of his interference on
behalf of a girl, who they were at the time indecently
molesting, and after one of them had struck him a severe
blow upon the head with some deadly weapon, they all
left him bleeding, and in a hopeless condition, where he
might have died if it had not been for an-
other constable, who bad him conveyed to Guy's
Hospital, and there are no hopes of his recovery.
The following evidence was given before Mr. Grove,
the magistrate, at the Greenwich Police-office, during
the course of the day. The following men, now in
custody, William Sullivan, William Brezen, Michael
Collins, and Timothy Driscoll, were placed before the
magistrate.
Edward Ford deposed that he knows all the pri-
soners. He was at the Rodney Arms with them on
Friday night, and was turned out with them by the
landlord at twelve o'clock, when he heard a girl abusing
one of them for taking liberties with her person. She
had been drinking with them,
and the policeman told
them all to go home, or he must lock them up.
Thomas Furnell, a dockyard labourer, stated that be
saw a man pulling about a woman who remonstrated,
and that he heard tho policeman tell him to go home.
Ile went on, and left the prisoners at the corner of the
Rodney Arms.
James Usher deposed that he was
going home at a
quarter past twelve, when, as ho passed the Rodney, he
saw a man leaning against the wall in a helpless condi-
tion, and upon his trying to arouse him he found, by the
light of his lamp, that he was deluged with blood. He
ran off for assistance, and the poor fellow was taken to
the station-house.
Mary Ann Harding, of No. 1, Dock-street, Deptford,
stated she was at the Rodney on the night in question, in
company with two young men, and left them a few
minutes after twelve o'clock. The prisoners left h
te tap-
room at the same time, and one of them pulled her about
She
home, calledar and
them indecently who, she got into the street. She told them
if they did not leave her alone she would get them locked
up.go
the morning. He said so three or four times. She then
went home, and left the men and the officer at Tinderbox-
court. o preferrogaues charge.T he
against the party in
policeman told her
to
The police-sergeant and owe of the constables deposed
that Hastie stated on his way to the hospital that Sulli-
van and a thick-lipped man had done it. They went to
Sullivan's lodging, and,:openingfthe door, he said, before
a word was uttered, "It was not me that did it ; and
when one of them took hold of him, and asked, " Done
what ?" he replied, " I know nothing about it."
Sergeant Lovell deposed to taking the other pri-
soners into custody, and to finding some blood on liro-
an's trousers.
Upon being asked what they bad to say in an-
swer, Sullivan simply replied that he bad not been at
the Rodney on the previous night, and the other pri-
soners denied having any knowledge of the assault.