The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-08 00:00:00

EVENING,

well that, contemporaneously with the growth o
the former in this great country, we had amongst
us, happily, private banks, whose wealth and whose
business habits justly entitled them to the large amount
of public confidence and support which they received,
and it was in no jealous spirit or mean rivalry that ho
had made these observations. It was well known that
a large portion of their (the London and County
Joint-stock Bank's) customers were the provincial
trader and agricultural classes ; and without at all
mooting the question as to the extent of public benefit
which might result from the alterations that had been
made in reference to the importation of food into
this country, all parties were agreed that the im-
mediate consequences of recent legislation bad been to
place the agricultural classes, and those small trading
classes in more immediate connexion with them, in very
embarrassing and difficult circumstances.—(Hear, hear.)
No man practically acquainted with agricultural opera
tions or the actual condition of agriculturists could fail to
see that, although one of the ultimate results of our free-
trade legislation might be to diminish the annual rental of
estates, that that effect reached the owner of the land
through the side of the occupier; and that when the
occupier of land found himself in circumstances where a
great and sudden depression of agricultural produce took
place, it was, as all must acknowledge, accompanied by
great personal embarrassment in many instances; and
that it was very unlike the case of a large speculator
or merchant, who might find himself suddenly with a
large stock of some article, the value of which was
suddenly changed by the removal of some particu-
lar tax. In the latter case a number of opportunities
was certain to arise almost immediately to enable that
party in a great measure to recover himself; but the case
was very different indeed with the agriculturist. It was
impossible fur him, probably during the counse of his own
life, to recover himself from the seriousconsequences of a
sudden depression in the value of his agricultural produc-
tions. The meeting would therefore feel how important
it was that in dealing with the agricultural classes they
did not, by any act of theirs, invite or encourage the agri-
culturist to meet the outgoings either from his own
capital or from their sin the bank. There was a strong
spirit and desire on the part of the agricultural classes
to meet manfully and scrupulously every engagement,and
he constantly found that spirit and that anxiety forcing the
agriculturists. inclined to hope against hope, to trench on
their own capital, and evincing agreat desire founded on
sanguine anticipations of future reacti,,n, to encroach on
that of the balik; and he hoped that he had the support of
the proprietors in the anxiety which the board had shown
to be more care!ul that the bank should be no parties
to assist them in a matter so dangerous, and fraught
with so much injury to the establishment. But,
on the other hand, he was bound to say that in this
period of transition there was a la-ge portion of the
agricultural classes in the district with which they were
connected who had had the good sense to preserve their
capital intact, and the position of this bank at
the close of the present year was a corroboration of the
fact he had just stated. The directors ha I endeavoured
to meet the difficulty to which he had alluded, by in-
creasing the staff of inspectors, and by making an inter-
nal arrangement which secured the daily attendance at
the bank of at least two members of the board. After
some further observations he moved the adoption of the
report.

The motion having been snonded, was carried unani-
mously.
A dividend at as rate of 6 per cent. per annum was
then declared, and the balance of 3.1301. carried to the
guarantee fund. Some formal resolutions were pa..sed. and
a cordial vote of thanks having been given to the
Chairman, the meeting broke up.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COUAT OF Q EEIV'S BENCH, Feb. 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
RICHARDSON V. WODSON.

This was an action for a libel published in the Yorkshire-
man newspaper. The plaintiff was an attorney, and appeared
to have been a director in two or three companies in which
Mr. Hudson was the chairman of the directors. The alleged
libel referred to the connexion of the plaintiff with Mr.
Hudson in certain railway companies, and declared that "it
would appear as if a charter had existed for defalcation, mis-
management, and corruption in companies over which they
had control." It then went on to allege that the plaintiff was
guilty of corruption, and speaking of his situation as attor-
ney for the Union Bank at York, said, "It is our opinion
that such a maa is not to be trusted in a responsible situa-
tion." The defendant pleaded a justification, in which, for
the purpose of justifying the imputations of the libel,
he set out a variety of facts connected with the railway
companies in which the plaintiff and Hudson had been con-
cerned. The finding of the jury was that mismanagement,
artifice, and defalcation did exist in every company over
which Hudson and the plaintiff had control; but the jury
negatived the allegation of individual corruption charged
against the plaintiff. On this finding the verdict was en-
tered for the defendant, with leave for the plaintiff to move
to set aside this verdict, and enter it for the plaintiff.
Mr. ATHERTON and Mr. E. PRICE showed cause against
the rule, and contended that the finding might be treated
as divisible, and that on the finding that corruption ex-
isted in the companies over which the plaintiff and Hudson
had control, the defendant was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Watson, in support of the rule, was not called on.
The COURT expressed a clear opinion that the verdict must
be entered generally for the plaintiff. The part of the plea
on which the finding was in favour of the defendant was on
an immaterial issue, and could not be allowed to destroy the
effect of finding for the plaintiff on an issue which was
material, and which related to libellous matter. The de-
fendant ought to have pleaded two distinct pleas, instead of
pleading one general justification; and it would be unfair to
allow him the advantage of having a verdict entered in his
favour, merely because an immaterial issue, which he ought
not to have put on the record, was found for him, when the
material and libellous charge was distinctly negatived by the
jury. The rule for entering the verdict for the plaintiff must
be made absolute.