The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-27 00:00:00

WATERFOItD AND KILKENNY
RAILWAY COMPANY.
A special general meeting of the Shareholders of this
Company was held yesterday, at the Hall of Commerce, for
the purpose of taking into consideration the Subject of the
proposed extension of lines of railway in connexion with
this Company.
The CHAIRMAN (Pierce Butler, Esq., M.P.) said, that the
object of the meeting was sufficiently stated in the adver-
tisement of the meeting, so that nothing further remained
fur him to refer to than the propositions that
would be submitted to them. Though it might
be travelling out of the way as far as techni-
calities was concerned, it would be interesting for him
to state that be had just arrived from the scene of action.
lie had been in company with 04 contractor (Mr. Wright)
at that portion of the line which formed the first con-
tract, and had considerable satisfaction in stating to
them that that portion of the line was very promising.—
(Hear.) Some cottages had been levelled to the ground,
proper compensation having been made to the possessors ; and
he was happy also to state that there was a sufficient quantity
of timber to complete that portion of the contract.—(Hear.)
There existed no ill feeling among the labouring por-
tion of the community through which the • line
passed, who were very desirous of being employed,
on the work, so that there was nothing like combina-
tion among them to be apprehended. It would be a
matter of congratulation for them to consider that that
very speculation would give employment to the po-
pulation, 'as well as be very remunerative. They
would feel a satisfaction in knowing that it would
go a long way towards mitigating the distress
that would be occasioned by the failure of the po-
tato crops in Ireland. To come to another point, he
would say that whenever calls were made on shareholders
they had a right to demand from the directors the reason of
the same, and the mode in which such were to be
applied.—(Hear, hear.) The calls for 5/. per share
had caused some animadversion, but the object of that de-
mand was, that they (the Directors) were anxious to pro-
ceed with the works as soon as possible.—(Hear.) Under
these circumstances, they had determined to call a meeting.
Sir R. Peel had selected to-day to lay down his plan
with respect to railways, but whatever that plan might be,
he- conceived it would not affect the speculation to any ex-
tent. The engineer of the Company lay down the
plans and sections.
The SECRETARY read the notice convening the meeting,
and then read the plan of the proposed extensions. The
first was from Kilkenny to Carlow, the next from Kilkenny
to Clonmel, the sections and plans for which would be shortly
arranged, and it would rest with the Committee whether the
same should be proceeded with instanter or postponed till next
session. The next line was from Kilkenny to Galway, which
was an independent Company, and in which the Directors
advised the shareholders to take shares to the amount of
50,0001. Amicable arrangements existed between that Com-
pany and the Cork and Waterford Railway C.)mpany.
Mr. Hoursn proposed a resolution, that having the va-
rious plans and sections, they should empower the Directors
to carry the same into effect, and to oppose any railways
which might be in opposition to the interests of this Company.
Mr. RICHARDSON seconded the resolution.
Mr. TYTHE said he wished to ask a question with respect
to that experiment on what was called the wood line. What
were the intentions of the Company towards the patentees of
that plan ?
The eliminate—There was no understanding with their
Company on the subject. It was merely to be tested for
six miles.
Mr. EMERY said it was a contract between the patentees
and the Company.
Mr. TITHE said he wished to know if the experiment
failed whether or not the chief expense was to be borne by
the patentees ?
Mr. EMERY—Certainly.
Mr. TYTHE said that his reason for asking the
question was, that they were aware of the difficulty
that existed in carrying out those changes. Some
companies in that country (England) had found a
great difficulty in making those changes. If their
line were an integral one, it would be another thing,
and before giving the Directors such powers as they now
sought, he conceived it would be desirable that they should
give some further explanations.
The CHAIRMAN having read the clause in the Act of Par-
liament which enabled them to make such alterations as
they considered were required,
Captain Monsox said that the objections against the ex-
tension were quite a mistake. Not having been
called on till very lately by the Directors, he
was not conversant with the details of the Water-
ford and Kilkenny Railway. He understood that
Mr. Prosser was to bear a proper proportion of the expense
of the experiment, and the Company another. They
must- consider the question involved in this agree-
ment. , In the first instance, the expense of an
iron railway was 2,0001., but the whole expense of the
wooden part was about 500/. ; there would, therefore, be an
expense of 2,500/. per mile, and the greater portion was
applicable to an iron railway. Their would be no change in
the gauges, and there would be only twelve tiers of wheels
required.
Mr.Tiertin said he was very much obligedfor the clear ex-
planation given by the engineer. He did not possess any
knowledge of the matter, and he was merely actuated in
asking these questions by a desire to obtain full information.
He was aware that on the line from Guildford to Working the
difficulty between the Companies respecting the wooden rail had
been surmounted, but would that be the case in the present
instance? He would wish to ask the chairman a few questions
respecting the different lines he had named.
The Cisanniaar, in reply to these questions, said that the
extent of the Kilkenny and Carlow line was 18 miles (Irish),
or 22 and a fraction miles (English), while the parent line
was 37 miles in length, of which the cost was 150,0001.
The length of. the Kilkenny and Clonmel was about
26 miles, and of the Kilkenny and Galway 70 English miles.
There was considerable opposition with respect to the Car-
low and Kilkenny line. Some years ago there was a Com-
pany, called the Great Leinster, which had obtained an Act
of Parliament. For some years they had given up the prospect,
but finding there was money. to be made, they thought it
better to revive the speculation, and to take that portion
from Kilkenny to Carlow. He slieved they intended to go
before Parliament and to offer opposition to their line, and he
believed that they (the Kilkenny and Waterford Company)
could oppose them with success.
Mr. TITHE said ho, was not acting in concert with any
other party, but merely from his own suggestions. He could
understand that the line (which was a smaller one) would
be a profitable speculation if it were carried out.
Mr. EMERY said there were five companies, anxious to,
obtain their line, which showed its value. They established
a communication with the Kilkenny and Dublin, which was
the only line between Waterford and Dublin.
Mr. tOPPiNGEiI said that he wished to know, in the event
of that independent Company failing to obtain their Act,
whether they should also suffer?
The CHAIRMAN having answered in the negative, a long
discussion ensued, which terminated in a resolution, to the
effect that they should take shares in the Kilkenny and Gal-
way Company to the extent of 50,000/., and interest them-
selves in that Company.
It was then unanimously agreed that the Company should
adjourn till next Saturday, at one o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCEEQUEB, Jan. 26.

IMPORTANT TO SHAREHOLDERS AND THE
STOCK EXCHANGE.
(Sittings in Banco.)
YOUNG V. sierru.
This was an action of debt for .work and labour done
by the plaintiff, as a stock broker, for the defendant, by
the sale and purchase of shares in a number of railway
companies, including the Churnet Valley, the Direct
Northern, the Armagh, Coleraine, and Portrush, and the
Enniskillen and Newry Companies, to which the de-
fendant had pleaded that the companies had not been
duly and completely registered, in accordance with the
provisions of the Joint-Stock Companies Act, upon
which the plaintiff had raised a demurrer, denying that
railway companies were liable to the provisions of the
Joint-Stock Companies Act, alluded to in the plea.
Mr. JERVIS now appeared to support the plea in op-
position to the demurrer. He commenced his argument
by informing the Court that the case involved a point
of considerable importance to the railway world, upon
which• the opinion of the whole profession was com-
pletely divided, and both the bar and the railway world
were looking for the decision of the Court upon it with
the utmost interest. The action was brought by the
plaintiff, who was a stock-broker, to recover a sum of
money for work and labour done in the buying and
selling of railway scrip, but the defendant alleged that
the Company had not been completely registered in
accordance with the Joint-Stock Companies Act, and
this made sales and purchases in their shares not only
pull and void, but rendered the shareholders selling them
liable -to a penalty. Their Lordships would find that
the first clause of the Joint Stock Companies A3t re-
ferred to the powers of shareholders in joint-stock
conapanie‘,, and that the shareholders of all companies,
firmed or commenced after the Ist of November, 1844,
were prohibited from selling their shares until complete
registration should be effected ;, but companies, such as
railway companies, who required an Act of Parliament to
enable them to carry on their objects, were exempt from
the operations of this provision, except in certain eases
to be afterwards mentioned. Now, it would appear
from that part of 'the Act, that a railway' company was
not liable to this prohibition ; bat if. their Lordships
would just turn to the 26th section of the Act they would
re that the penaltiesimposed on parties for railway shares
in companies not completely registered wore applicable
to railway as well as every other joint-stock company,
except. a banking company, and this as well as other
provisions in the Act, was sufficient justification of the
plea which his client had placed upon the record. It was
difficult, from the
thentrad!ctory terms of the Act, to
ascertain what wasreal
t meaning of the Legislature,
And he confessed that interpretation clause threw
little or no light upon the subject.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON remarkedject'
that the greatest
evil of modern legislatic.n was the interpretation clause
of an Act of Parliament, which prevented the Legislature
from
explaining in precise words what its
.the Inter-
ih
meaning
It was like having an interpreter who spokessn.
bad that it was more difficult to understand
Engi
pretei than the other.
Mr. JERVIS admitted' that his ,Lordship's objections
were well founded, but he thought-the Act was suffi-
ciently explicit to
me show that all companies, except bank-
log companies, st be completely registered before
their shares could become Marketable.
Mr. MARTIN, on the other side, contended that rail-
way companies were exempted from the prohibitory
provisions of the Act. The Actonly.requi.red that a
railway company should be pro visionally registbefo re ered, an
the
d
did not require it to be completely registered
shareholders could be at liberty to dispose of their
shares.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in giving the judgment of
the Court, said that Mr. Martin had put two proposi-
tions to the Court, both of which he had established.
It appeared clear to him (the Lord Chief Baron) that
the 26th section of the Joint-,Stock Companies Act did
not apply to a railway company. It. was highly satis-
factory to be able to say that they knew the intention
of the Legislature in passing the Act, and that the mean-
ing of the 26th sectionw asesetthemeaning the Legislature in•
2d section. tended to put on the
the
nseemed to him (the Lord
Chief Baron) quite clear than. ltoperation of this Act
as regards complete registration and venalties for sale
of shares did not extend to railway companies,c:i: and
Therefore there was no defence to this action.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Baron PLATT c
eurrocl with the Lord Chief Baron, and the pleas Qt. 74).-
defendant were declared demurrable.