The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-09 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in.Banco, before Chief Justice Jervis, and Jus.
tices Cresswell, Williams, and Willes.)

COCKERELL V. THE VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY-FOR.

FEITURE OF SNARES.

The plaintiff in this case formerly held 200 shares in
the Van Diemen's Land Company, which shares the com-
pany declared forfeited for non-payment of calls. The
plaintiff, however, brought this action to recover the
value of the shares upon the ground that they had not
been properly forfeited ; and when the action came on
f ,r trial before the Chief Justice it was arranged that the
facts should be stated in a special case for the opinion of
the Court. To-day the matter came on for argument.
Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Burston appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Hugh Hill and Mr. Unthank for the
defendants.
The plaintiff had been a member of the firm of Cocke-
rell, Larpent, and Co., down to the time of the failure
of that house, at which time the shares of the company
were of only nominal value. Subsequently several calls
were made, but the plaintiff did not pay the calls upon
his share', and the company declared them to be for-
feited. The company's act declared that no advantage
should be taken of any forfeiture of shares until after 30
days' notice had been given by the directors of the com-
pany, under the hand of the clerk, to the owner thereof,
by aotice in writing, left at his usual or last-known
place of abode. In all his connections with the com-
pany the plaintiff was described as of Austin-friars, and
the notice of forfeiture was sent there. The place, how-
ever, was shut up, and there was a notice that all papers
for the firm were to be left at the office of Mr. Coleman,
whose address was given, and the notice of forfeiture
was sent to Mr. Coleman's office. It, however, never
reached the bands of the plaintiff, who was abroad, and
who remained ignorant of the forfeiture, and of the fact
that calls had been made. The shares continued almost
valueless until the end of 1852 ; but, after that time,
they rose in value until they reached the price of 191.
each. Whilst they were at that price the plaintiff de-
rnanded the shares, but the company refined that de-
mand, contending that they had been properly forfeited.
The questions for the Court were, whether the forfeiture
was regular, and, if not, for what amount the plaintiff
was entitled to recover. At the time of the trial the
shares were worth 181., and were now at 171.
The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and it was
arranged that the verdict should be entered for 2,6001.,
after allowing certain deductions on account of calls.
TEM CORE AND YOUGHAL RAILWAY COMPANY V. PATERSON
-LIiGALITY OF AN AMALGAMATION.
This was a special case framed for the purpose of ob-
tainiog the opinion of the Court as to the legality of an
amalgamation which bad been effected between the Cork
and Youghal and the Cork and Waterford Railway Com-
panies ; and the questions raised were two—first, whe-
ther the directors had power to amalgamate, and se-
condly, whether they had effectually exercised that
power.

- Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Lloyd appeared for the plaintiffs
and Mr.' Sergeant Ryles and Mr. Hodgson for the de-
fendant.
The Court was of opinion that a deed which had been
executed gave the directors power to effect an amalga.
tion, and that they had well exercised that power.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in London, before Mr. Justice
Crowder and a Common Jury.)
ALDERTON V. BRADSTOCR—SEDUCTION.
This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant upon the ground that he had seduced the plain-
tiff's daughter. The plea was not guilty.
Mr. Warren and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Malcolm for the defendant.
Mr. Warren, baying shortly opened the case, called
Elizabeth Alderton, the plafntiff's daughter who deposed
—I am 20 years of age, and my fatheris the head porter
at Waltham-cross station. I had been out at service
prior to the 20th of of May 1855, when my acquaintance
with the defendant commenced. I met him in a lane and
' afterwards took a walk with him ; it was on a Sunday
afternoon, about 3 o'clock, and we walked to the Berry-
green field, which is a short distance from my father's
house. (The witness then described the seduction.) I
afterwards had a child, which is now in court. I took
out a summons against the defendant, and he was taken
before the magistrates, but the summons was dismissed.
Cross-examineci—Berry-green Lien is an open field,
with not many trees in it. It was near a stile where the
defendant committed the act. He pushed me against the
and I accepted it. I had not the chance of making
any application to the defendant after I found myself in
the family-way. Whenever he used to see me coming he
got out of the way. I did not try to go after him.
I called upon him after I was confined. I never went
to his father's house after I found that I was in the
fam ly-way. My father did not know that I was in the
family. way till Christmas. My mother knew the Sun-
day before Christina'. I had been assisting my mother
in washing up to that time.
Re-examined—l shall be 20 years old on the 10th De-
cember. I know that the defendant has spoken to my
mother about marrying me. He had spoken to me
about keeping company with me. When we were in the
field together, nobody was passing at the time, but two
men and two women went by afterwards. I have six
brothers and sisters, and I am the oldest but one. Fa-
ther only comes home once a-day. I am not intimate
at all with a person named Denman, and there is no pre-
tence for saying that anything of this sort took place
between me and Denman. From the first I kept com-
pany with the defendant with a view to marriage.
Sophia Alderton, the mother of the last witness, said
—My husband is a porter at the Waltham-cross Rail-
way station, and we have six child,ien. The defendant
came to our place several times. He wished my daughter
not to go to service again, as he wished to keep company
with her.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Malcolm, on behalf of the defendant, addressed
the jury, and said he should call his client before them,
who would distinctly swear that be never had any inter-
course whatever with the plaintiff's daughter. If this
turned out to be so, there would be a direct conflict of
testimony, and he (Mr. Malcolm) had no doubt that the
jury would rightly decide between the parties.

- The defendant was then called and said—l was 19
years old on the 2d December last. I am an armoury
sergeant. I had enlisted to repair the arms of a regi-
ment or rather a depot. I reside in Whitechapel. On
the 20th May, 1855, I was residing in London. I went
down to Waltham once a week to see my friends. My
father keeps flys at the Falcon Inn. I had been ac-
quainted with the plaintiff's daughter a short time be-
fore the 20th May. I had visited her at her house
once or twice before the 20th of May. I recollect the
20th of May. I went out merely to take a walk with her.
We went to the fields and we sat down for about half
an hour, and then west home. I had no connection
whatever with her there. I did not push her down. I
did not take any liberties with her. I was intending at
that time to keep company with her. I had heard some-
thing which I did not like. I stopped there one evening
rather late. It was about the second Sunday after I had
walked with her in the fields. I said, "It is rather late,
I must go, or
.I shall be locked out." She said it did not
matter, as I could go back and sleep with her. Nobody
was present when she said this. She had never said any-
thing of that sort before, or I should have left her. I
never at any time told her father or her mother that I
thought of marrying her. She said before the magistrates
that I had bad connection with her at Berry-green fields.
She was asked if she thought the child was anything
like me. A. magistrate asked her. She said she did not
think it was, and it was not likely it should be. Den-
man was the party who introduced her to me, and I
said that Denman had said he bad got some steel filings
for her to destroy the child. She said it was false. I
have never in my life had any connection with this girl.
I told the magistrates so.
Cross-examined—l have known Denman for five or
six years. He works at the Ordnance factory. I should
think he is 23 years of age. He has married since this
occurrence. Denman is not in the employment of my
father, but he has lived in the same house as my father.
We were before the magistrates on the 20th March.
Since the seduction I have had conversation with him
about the plaintiff's daughter. I did not ask him whe-
ther be had connection with this young girl, and .vthe-
ther he would swear it.
Mr. Warren—Did you ask him to say before the ma-
gistrates that he had bad connection with her and he
refused—upon your oath, sir
Witness—l do not recollect.

Re-examined—l saw him one Sunday, and he said,
"Have you heard anything of this affair ?" I said,
" What do you mean ?" He said, "Of the child down
the lane." • I said, "You know more about it than I
do ;" and he said 1 ought not to Say anything against
him, as he had been a friend to me. Denman was sum-
'zoned by my father to fio before the magistrates as a
witness. He-was not present when I said 'that about
the steel filings. The case was not dismissed before
Denman was examined. He was called, and be denied

having said that about the steel filings. My father ba
employed the attorney to defend this action.
By Mr. Warren—l don't recollect that Denman Bald
before the magistrates, " I cannot perjure myself for
body." I will not swear that he did not say so, or
something like 4.
The plaintiff's daughter was then recalled, and ell
denied that any such conversation as the defends tit be
spoken to, in which she said that he might slee p with
her, had taken place. There were three beds in her
father's house. Her mother and father slept in or te, her'
self and sister in another, and her brothers in the, third,:
Mr. Justice Crowder, in summing up, said thr,t het'
the parties were in an humble sphere of life, but that
was no reason why the plaintiff should not base Ii!
remedy against the defendant if he had committo d
act to which plaintiff's daughter bad distinctly wore.
On the other hand the defendant had sworn posktivelY
the other way, and the question, therefore, for them
was whose testimony they believed. If the deforideFff
bad really committed the act complained of, the plointl
would be entitled to a fair and reasonable amount of 004.
pensation, but if they believed the defendant's testiOeeir
then he would be entitled to their verdict. /5 •
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damaf ree
(Sittings in Banco, after Term, before Chief Justice jerviet
and Justices Cresswell, Williams, and WilleP.) n
Notice was this morning given that this court will,ol-d-
WednEsday, the 18th June, and two following days, hod.
sittings, and proceed in disposing of the business pee a
ing in the special paper and in the new trial paper, ee,,
other business and will also give judgment in !Witter'
then standing for consideration.
TARRANT V. WEBB-ACCIDENT AT THE CARLTON Cil'gj3

HOUSE.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff in falling from a se4ff°,,,
1
erected at the Carlton Club-house ; and at the trial,7:
fore Mr. Justice Crowder, at the last sittings in nitluie
ser, the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff of 25/. 4
Mr. M. Smith now moved for a new trial or to arra%
the judgment, and stated that the defendent' was a /10°9,i
decorator and upholsterer, at the West-end, and he ha
been employed to decorate the interior of the emie
Clubhouse. In the course of that job he employed be
plaintiff, who is a journeyman painter, and whilst
*
work for the defendant the plaintiff and four other al°
went upon a scaffold for the purpose of "flatting' ti
ceiling of the entrance hall. They, however, Intl 10
been long there when the scaffold fell, and one of tb:
plaintiff's ankles was broken, and he claimed dannibe,;
for that injury on the ground that it had been cansei 10
consequence of the scaffold having been improperly eairt
strutted. It was how submitted that the judgloq"
should be arrested, inasmuch as it was not averred
the declaration that the defendant had wilfully at
knowingly employed an incompetent person to erect tue
scaffold, and it was also said that the plaintiff ougt t°
have exercised his discretion as to whether the Beatai,l
%
was safe before he ventured on it. As to a new tri.sl,
was submitted that the proper question to be tried woof
whether the defendant was responsible for the acts
persons employed by him of whose incompetence he "I;
not aware ; and that that question had not properly he°
left to the jury.
Rule granted.

Country Markets.

MARKET- JvzE 6-

First..

sioroa'
48s 4d