The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-05 00:00:00

NORWICH.

This motion to discharge an injunction granted by
the late Vice-Chancell,r of England in May, 1848, was
opened yesterday in Westminster, and was now resumed.
The injunction restrained the corporation, treasurer,
end town clerk of Norwich, from applying any part of
the borough fund or the tonnage dues to the expenses
of prosecwiog a Bill in Parliament to clear or to widen
the river Winstaus, ruir.ing between Norwich and Y•ir-
mouth. The length of the river between the two towns
is 32 miles, of which 20 miles are within the county of
the city of Norwich, and on the ground that the cleans-
ing and dredging of the river would be of great benefit
to the people of Norwich, by facilitating the navigation
from Yarmouth, the corporation thought they were jus-
tified in applying the borough fund to the expenses of
obtaining the Act. Some of the inhabitants of Norwich
thought differently, and at their relation an information
was filed by the Attorney-General, and on that informa-
tion the injunction was founded.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Brookebank were heard
in support of the motion to dissolve the injunction.
They contended that the deepening of the river, being
for the benefit of the inhabitants, the borough fend was
a proper source to resort to for the expenses. It was a
delicate matter for the Court to interfere to stop an ap-
plication to Parliament, where all matters arising in an
application for a Bill could be better discussed than in
this court.

Lord Justice K. BRUCE observed that the injunction
did not prevent the application to Parliament; it only
said the application should not be at the expense of the
trust fund. He referred to the Municipal Corporation
Act, sth and 6th William IV.,cap. 76, sad sec. 92, which
did not mention any payments like those out of the bo-
rough fund.
The counsel for the corporation argued that the bo-
rough fund was liable to many payments not stated in
that section.

Mr. Bethel'. Mr. Walker, and Mr. Rogers were heard
in support of the injunctioc.
Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE said that he and Lord
Cranworth were of opinion that, without prejudice to
any question of costs, the motion should be refused. All
of them clearly saw the distinction that the corporation
were not restrained from applying tto Parliament, but
such application was not to be at the cost of the trusts
fund.

Lord CRANWORTH expressed his concurrence.
Two of the counsel on each side were then hoard as to
the costs of the motion, those for the motion contending
that the injunction was too largely and too loosely
worded, and that was obscurely.
Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE said, the objection to
the wording of the injunctior, was, that it restrained the
payment of the expenses of prosecuting the Act as well
out of the tonnage dues of Norwich, created by a local
act, as out of the borough furd ; but there being no sur-
plus of the tonnage dues, they could not be applied to
the expenses. lie thought tke injunction was not too
largely worded, and therefore that the motion to dis-
charge it should be refused, with costs.
Lord CRANWORTH expressed his opinion to the same
effect, and the motion was declared to be refused with
costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.

WINDING-UP ACT-JAMES V. THE MONMOUTHSHIRE

AND GLAMORGArSHIRE BANK.

In this case the plaintiff Lead Mr. Rinkin, another
shareholder in the scheme of this bank, had petitioned
the Court to interfete, under :he provisions of the Wind-
ing-up Act, in the affairs of the bank, with a view to its
dissolution. The application upon the part of Mr.
James, the plaintiff. was found• d upon affi.lavits that the
plaintiff was proprietor ot 213 shares, at 201. each; that
the company itself was a losing concern, which, there-
fore, came properly within the jurisdiction of the Court;
and that the C,,urt ought to interfere, and make its order
for winding up the affairs of the company, and dissolv-
ing the bank partnership. It appeared that the com-
pny had made large advances, for mining and other
purposes, to many subscribers and directors, which had
been expended in some instanced in profitless and ruin-
ous speculations. One of these debtors of the bank
owed a sum of 200.0001. to the bank, on which no pay-
ment of interest had taken place since the .year 1842.
The winding op of the concern was therefore expedient
to protect the shareholders from indefinite liabilities
and possible ruin. It was suggested that the requisite
inquiry to elucidate the necessity of the Court's inter-
ference at once could be carried on by the Judge ot the
County Court of Monmouth, with the least expense and
most expedition—a course which was authorised by a
particular clause of the Winding-up Act.
The directors of the bank resisted the application,
alleging that the great la)dy of the shareholders were
anxious to avoid this extremity, and had taken prudent
steps to raise such a sum out of the assets of the bank
and the mortgages and securities it possessed as would
meet all its liabilities, and pay off these debts. The bank
had stopped payment on the 7th of October last, of
which notice was given to all the shareholders, conven-
ing the shareholders, and 106 out of 280 shareholders
attended a meeting, who unanimously agreed to call
together the creditors of the bank. A committee of the
shareholders had been appointed to protect their own
eitranoeffrpt interest
aeos
ksoer ten: intot
ate
tchdacretae9i
saln4ic goi7osnnti ihnenagegrt
shares tniaht ebgwiaeanannsskest
highly
atuie
gsl
p, thischtinymndiaipncsae anximy inexpedient
eowcdnoiogTemusnhlmt t
de
tityhtohtedeape mining
drew
calonew
tehueedp
and other interests in the country, and, therefore, that
a reasonable time ought to be given to the directors and
the committee to collect the assets and distribute the
proceeds amongst the creditors, which, added to the pro-
posed contributions of the shareholders, would more
effectually enable the directors to meet the liabilities of
the company than by bringing them into this court
under the provisions of the Winding-up Act, which
would be highly injurious to the general interests of the
shareholders. It was also an important feature of this
case that the creditors were all inclined to give the
directors and the committee of creditors the time re-
qniredto collect the assets to meet debts, exceeding
400,0001. The petition was supported by Mr. Roundell Palmer,
Mr. Freeling, and Mr. Roxburgh; the Solicitor-General
and Mr. James were heard for the company.
The MASTER of the ROLLS, at the conclusion of the ar-
gument far the defendants, intimated that be would hear
the-reply to-morrow (this) morning.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice ERLE and a
Common Jury.)
HARRISON V. DONN.
Mr. Prentice appeared as counsel for the plaintiff; Mr
Parnell fur the defendant.
This was the first case brought within the operation
of the recent Act which authorised the examination of
the parties themselves ins their own cause.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel it ap•
peared that the action was brought by Sarah Harrison,
in fornea pauperiq, to recover payment of the sum of
301., being the sum claimed for the nursing and main-
tenance of the defendant's infant child from the 19th
of July, 1848, down to the sth- of the same month,
102 weeks, at the rate of 6a. 'per week.
Igt.?.' g
d!)feeitnid4nt pleaded payment.;
The p!ainttff was a lanodrebs
and
the defendantaiding iathe
neigh-
bourhood Whitechapel-cued; ul