The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-16 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

VOLLANS V. FLETCHER.-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS TO
PAY CASH DEPOSITS.

In this case Mr. Martin and Mr. Hoggins appeared
for the plaintiff. Mr. Crowder (with whom was Mr.
Ball) appeased for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case was an attorney, carrying on
business at Hull ; the defendant was a director of th(
Birmingham, West Bromwich, and Walsall Railway.
The plaintiff, it appeared, had made application to the
secretary
Subsequently 10 shares were allotted to him, the depoby
of this company, for an allotment of 30 shares.
upon which was 211., which sum was paid by the plaintifi
into the Hull Banking Company, on account of the com-
pany. The number of shares of which the compan)
consisted was 10,000, all of which were allotted, and of
this number 4,840 had been paid upon. The surveys of
the line in question were completed, and were deposited ;
but the deposit of 10 per cent. with the Accountant-Ge-
neral of the Court of Chancery, never took place, and in
consequence the scheme was necesarily abandoned.
It was not proposed to go on with It
in the ensuing session, although the company
still remained in existence. The plaintiff had never
received any scrip in exchange for the bankers' receipt
for the deposits. In the month of February the directors
of the Company resolved upon returning the sum of
7s. 6d. to each of the shareholders sho had paid up the
deposit of 21. 2s. The plaintiff now brought his action
to recover back the full amount of his deposits, upon the
ground that it was paid for a particular object, viz., to
make the deposit in compliance with the standing orders
of the House of Commons.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, at the conclusion Of the
plaiatiff's case, said, that in his opinion the plaintiff was
entitled to recover the sum of 191. 15s. or nothing. The
directors had power to reserve 2s. 6d. per share for pre-
liminary expenses, but they had no legal right to reserve
any more. They ought not to have applied money paid
for the specific object of depositing with the Houle of
Commons for any other purpose whatever.
Mr. CROWDER, on the part of the defendant, con.
tended that the agreement on the part of the plaintiff
was not binding, on account of its not being stamped,
and that the company were perfectly ready to deliver
scrip, which the plaintiff refused to take.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said this case differed most
materially from the cases of Nockels v. Crossly, and
Walstab V. Spottiswood ; in those cases the directors
refused to issue scrip. The defendants in this action
were ready and willing to deliver scrip, and had cer
tainly some ground for complaint of the conduct of the
plaintiff in refusing to take the scrip; his conduct might
in all probability have tended to endanger the interests
of the company by preventing other persons from taking
up their shares also.

After some discussion, it was finally arranged that
the plaintiff should be nmsuited, with liberty to move
to enter the verdict for the sum of 211., or 191. 155,,
should the Court be of opinion that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover either of those sums.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)
CRIM CON.-ROBSON V. RUDING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Lieu-
tenant in the 3d Buffs, against a gentleman residing in
Bishopsgate-street, London, to recover damages for the
seduction of his wife.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and
Mr. Bovil appeared for the plaintiff ; Sir F. Thesiger
and Mr. Sergeant Channel for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD opened the case, going over
the particulars he intended to prove in evidence. He
said the plaintiff was a young gentleman, an officer in
the 3d Buffs Regiment of Foot, and the defendant a
merchant in the city of London, residing at Salvador
House, Bishopsgate-street ; and the action was brought
to recover damages for the seduction of the wife of the
former. The intimacy between the defendant and
the plaintiff's wife commenced in 1841, when
the plaintiff was called away to India The
Learned Gentleman then went on to explain several
circumstances at which the alleged criminal intercourse
had been consummated. The result was a miscarriage, and
a train of events through which the plaintiff became aware
of the injury that had been inflicted.on him. The Learned
Gentleman concluded by reading a correspondence which
had taken place between the plaintiff and his wife, while
the former was in India, exhibiting a gradual decadence
of the tone of affection in the wife's letters until the final
rupture which had led to the present action. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to call his witnesses.
Mr. Theobald, clerk to Mr. Barrel, the plaintiff's at-
torney, produced an entry from the registry of Stoke
Newington, of the marriage of plaintiff and his wife.
George Shadbolt examined—l am a merchant in St.
Martin's-lane, City. I know the plaintiff, Mr. Robson,
well. He is a son of Major Robson. I saw Mrs. Robson
shortly before the marriage, at the time the marriage
settlement was made. I was one of the trustees under
the settlement. The settlement was made on the 10th
of October, 1837, and a few days before the marriage.
I did not see them together after the marriage before
Licut. Robson went to India. I saw the latter after he
returned from India. In 1841 the other trustee re.
turned, and I then invested 1,6001., belonging to Miss
Middleton (now Mrs. Robson), in the Three per Cents.
She held the property in her own right. This was on
account of being sole trustee, and it was invested in my
name.

Cross-examined—Plaintiff had, at the time of the
settlement, no property to arrange. The settlement
was of Miss Middleton's property alone, and it was
secured to herself after the marriage.
Richard Sargent said—l was the solicitor employed to
prepare the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Robson.
I produce the settlemf nt, also another subsequently-
executed, in 1838, securing to Mrs. Robson a certain
amount of property there set forth, which in the interim
had accrued to her.

Cross-examined—Was acquainted with the plaintiff's
aunt, a mintier in Maddox-street. I was paid some
time after by Mr. Freshfield, solicitor to Colvil and Co.
I did not know why it was he paid me.
Alexander Dawson proved the investment of various
sums in the names of the trustees of Mr:. Robson, and
sundry payments made out of the fund.
Miss Ellen Shadbolt—Miss Middleton had been living
previously with her aunt, Mrs. Kearney. After the
marriage the young couple lived for a short time at Mrs.
Kearney's. I visited them several times there, and they
appeared to be very much attached to each other. Ido
not know where they resided after leaving Mrs. Kearney's, though I saw them on visits after that time,
and they still seemed much attached.
Cross-examined by Sir F. TIIESIGER—I did not know
Miss Middleton before the marriage, though I bad seen
her once or twice.

Lieut.-ColonelThomas Dobbin, formerly of the 19th
Regiment, examined—l knew the father of Miss Mid-
dleton well, and also knew the plaintiff. I also have
been acquainted with Miss Middleton. Before rand
after the marriage I was confidentially consulted by both
parties in all their affairs. They appeared after the
marriage very happy, and much attached to each other.
After the plaintiff procured an ensigncy, and went to
India, Mrs. Robson still consulted me on all her pecu-
niary affairs. I was consulted on the purchase of a lieu-
tenancy for the plaintiff. It cost 270/., and was paid
out of a moiety of Mrs. Robson's property. which was
coming to the plaintiff, the arrangement being that one-
half of the property should be secured to each. I re-
collect calling, on the sth of March last year, on Mr. aud
Mrs. Robson, at Middleton-square. This was after the
plaintiff had returned from India. I called by appoint-
ment. Mrs. Robson was living there at the time, but I
do not know where Lieutenant Robson was staying. I
was not aware before that visit that there were any
differences ; but I learned there was on a second visit.
Cross-examined—I have been well acquainted with
the plaintiff since a child. He was, I believe, the ille-
gitimate son of Major Robson. Ido not know whether
Mrs. Robson was illegitimate. I visited Mrs. Robson
first at lodgings belonging to Mr. Dimewell, and
subsequently in Edgeware-road. These visits were
during the absence of the plaintiff in India. I
did not. see Mt s. Green, the landlady of the house in
Edgeware-road, at the times I called there. The first
time I called at Middleton-square, after the return of the
pb luati ns
ht i,
eff afterwards
did not
complainedlearn of an any
of
personal dispute
violence
e fthem,rom
the plaintiff, of his throwing her down and abusing her.
I heard alf:o a statement from the plaintiff accusing his
wife. I tried to reconcile them, but failed in my attempts.
She refused all reconciliation, and though urgently re-
quested by the plaintiff to go with him to Chichester, she
would not. She bad been accused of having a child, and
that under such an aspersion it was impossible she could
again live with him.

'Re-examined—The plaintiff denied in toto the allega-
ion of violence.

Colonel McDonal examined, said--I have known the
father of Mr. Robson for twenty years ; I also know the
plaintiff, and have seen him and his wife together on
several occasions, but cannot speak as to anything be•
tween them. During the plaintiff's absence in India, I
called twice on Mrs. Robson, at the house in Edgeware-
road. I called there as a friend of both the plaintiff's
father and himself.

Harriet Kearney said I am the sister of the late Major
Robson. Major Robson died in 1836. He married Miss
Patten, the aunt of Mit s Middleton. I was present at
the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife. She was then
eel eiwrt oi
enntgtt hoa egn then. .m
Ie
nSkt
knew
wla
thinkl
someso visited
about
timei3ou tmh
before
occasionallynurgeus
thet T h eliving with her aunt, the widow of Major Robson. The
latter is now Mrs. Cox, having married since. Mrs.
Robson had partments in Regent-street, and I used to see
mar-
riageamMtaiSsrsrtioMaokgfeiedtShdtook place in October. Just before the mar-
riage Miss Middleton came to my holm, and she lived
there after the marriage. I think they lodged with me
till the following January. They seemed very devoted to
each other. After that they wentoftoliveamt
Athier.re, and they seemed Timewell's,
isnEmcied greatly
gewtue-road.
I ten saw them
there, to each other.
They
yb lodgingada
dispute
in thatwi
th
Mr.Timewell, and removed to
another neighbourhood, from which they
rinhuthsbatain Maddox-street.
1833, Mrs. Robson had a child, to which
she became much attached, as did also the plaintiff. I
saw them from time to time down to his joining the regi-
ment, and they still seemed very much attached to each
slunbsseoqvueemnhtleyr,removed to my sister's,
ment,
at Chatham, she
miner. The letter
°showed much feeling, and addressed a letter to me, in
she might have had a home at my
was put in and read. .
in continuation—I expected she would have
Witness,
remained with me during her husband's absence, but she
wthhiecrh.
lest. At any
to lodge at
house. I knew she went . Mrs.
Greene's,
in
the Edgewaie-road, and she remained there, as she
shOenexpparretiansegdwhietrhsehlef
stated, because they treated her kindly. She, some
time after went to another longing. I did
not
see
any-
thing more of her till ray nephew' return in March,
1845. In the meantime Mrs. Robson had been to
Italy and returned. My nephew went to lodge at
Hampstead, and she was lodging in Islington. About
time
this time she called on me, but she could not be pre-
vailed on to come in. She said she might be seen at
4, Middleton-square. I subsequently called on her with
my nephew; and had tea there, lin conduct on that oc-