The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-19 00:00:00

BIRTHS IN THI. WEEK.

818
739

....... .. 1,555

DONCASTRA NOVEIIIIP
Th:rit9 Fmn.—This Llir was held.
on last Monday, .
beasts fi fun the grazing districtswa a very large show of
parts. Cows in calf re4li3e,l; of the north ar.d other
Et.ers, 12/. to 161. ; heifers, 81. troom 141. to 201. ; strong
of these animals checked sales, and the The' abundance
Milk cows (A' ere scarce and dear. Therebe trade was slow.
of sheep. blethers fetched 355. to 408 was a faro show
224. to 353. ; ewes, 225. The show of
fpher head larni)R,
ttifirrert-one in pin E. of quality. An;triirus was an in.
picked up early ; nagi COU at 40 to 50 ki:g"(1 was
guineas each ;
cart.borsee, 301. to 451.
Ships arriving at Liverpool report a
zr, Dirdvalen,. s
strong easterly and bafilirl winds in the Chaniaei—lh';

LA GP' TELLIGENCE.—Nov. 18.

VICE•CIi3NCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Sir William Page Wood.)
HARE V. BELL-SIR JOHN DEAN PAUL, BART.

This was a bill filed by Mrs. Ann Francis Hare,
widow, now residing at Baden, and who was the sister
of Sir John Dean Paul, Bart., of the firm of Strahan,
Paul, and Co., for the purpose of estaielishing her claim
against her brother, as equitable mortgagee for a sum
of 1,5001., which Sir John Dean Paul represented to his
sister as having been lent upon a mortgage of Park-street
Chapel and schools, Chelsea, the property of Sir John
Dean Paul. The bill stated that previously to 1847
Mrs. Hare, a widow, had entrusted the managment of
her money and her pecuniary affairs to her brother.
Her husband had died in 1842, leaving four children.
The widow's property consisted of public stocks or
funds and railway shares, and shares of joint-stock com-
panies. The interest and dividends were received by
her brother, Sir J. Dean Paul, as her tanker and agent,
she having a banking account with the firm. She had
the utmost confidence in the honour and integrity of her
brother. In 1847 he proposed to invest 1,5001. upon a
mortgage of Park Chapel and schools, leasehold pro-
perty belonging to him. This was agreed to, and her
brother represented that the mortgage had been duly
executed, and that the lease and the deeds were secured
in the strong room of the banking-house. An entry ap
peared in the bo As of the firm—" 1847, December 11,
paid Park Chapel 1,5001." In 1849 Mrs. Hare asked
for information as to her property, complaining that. her
income was insufficient for the maintenance of herself
and children. To this Sir John Dean Paul answered,
" I think the following statement will make everything
clear and intelligible to you. You will also, I hope, re
ceive with satisfaction what I have ascertained since
writing my letter yesterday—that in consequence of the
increased interest upon the paid-up capital of the Namur
and Liege shares and the Park Chanel mortgage, your
next year's income will be 1,8261. 17s. 4d." This was
accampanied by the following memorandum :—" Park
Chapel mortgage, due 11th December, 72/. 163. ftd." On
the Bth of May, 1854, Sir John Dean Paul wrote to the
plaintiff as follows :—" At your marriage the 5,0001. left
te you by Lady A. S. was put into trust, and invested
in bonds at 51. per cent., in the respective names of Hall
and Caterelish, for 4,0001. and 1,0001. ; the latter has
recently been paid off and re-invested in Consols. See
account, No. 1, &c. Beyond this, out of the 16,0001.
-from the Simpson fund, 5,004/. more was also put into
trust (see No. 2), leaving 11,0001., which was received in
September, 1844, and upon my father's advice invested
in Eastern Counties Railway shares, and subsequently
(when under Hudson's mismanagement that line got into
difficulty and disrepute) transferred by him, under a
power of attorney from you, to the Namur and Leige,
where it has been ever since paying you good interest ;
and the shares are in the custody of Strahan and Co.,
locked up in the iron chest (see No. 3) ; beyond this,
out of savings from your income, the following invest.
menta have been made from time to time, with your
consent, the securities for which are equally in the strong
house in our joint names (see account No. 4, &c) ;
that, in fact, you are richer than you take credit for."
Sir J. D. Paul paid interest on this mortgage down to
December, 1854. The assignees having taken possession
of the lease and deeds relating to Park Chapel and
schools, which were advertised for sale, Mrs. Hare gave
notice of her claim as equitable mortgagee. The property
was sold in August last for 3,7501. It appeared that

Sir J. D. Paul had obtained another advance upon the
same property from his brother, and the deeds had been
left with the same solicitor as had those relating to Mrs.
Flare's raortgaie; bat the brother's mortgage had been
paid cff in 1852.
Beales was for the plaintiff.
Mr. Hanly, for the assignees, stated that they were
_ _

willing to act, as the Court might decide. He sublitted,

however, tbat there was not sufficient evidence to entitle
Mrs. Hare to claim as equitable mortgagee, there being
no evidence of any deposit of deeds in that character,
and no memorandum in writinm. The chapel and schools
belonged to Sir J. D. Paul, and the lease had not been
out of his own possession.
Mr. Beales wai heard in reply.
The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the evidence
afforded by the letters was sufficient to entitle Mrs. Hare
to the usual decree in favour of an equitable mortgage.
The plaintiff mu-t add her her costs to the security.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Justices Cresswell, Williams,
and Crowder.)

MORRIS V. THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK-APPLICATION FOR
EXECUTION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER.

Mr. Lush applied for a rule calling upon one of the
shareholders in the Royal British Bank to show cause
why execution should not issue against him. The
Darned counsel statrid that judgment had been recovered
against the bank for 250/. ; but the official assignee having
taken possession of the whole of the property of the
bank, there was nothing which the plaintiff could take
is execution to satisfy his judgment. Under these cir-
cumstances the present application was made to enable
the plaintiff to levy execution uprn the property of an
individual shareholder in the bank.

Rule gr, anted.
(Sittings at Nisi Prim', before Mr. Justice Willes and a
Common Jury.)

TAYLOR AND ANOTHER V. STRAY-PURCHASE OF SHAMES

IN THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.

The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Taylor and Ashton,
are stockbrokers, and at the latter end of August la-t
they purchased for the defendant 22 shares in the Royal
British Rank, at the price of 321. per share. The defend-
ants declined to take the shares, but the plaintiff had to
pay the persons of whom they bought, and they now
sued to recover that sum--G44/., and also some charges
and interest, from the defendant.

Mr. Atherton ,and another learned gentleman appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Gibbon for
the defendant.

It appeared that a few days after the purchase of the
shares—viz., on the 31 Sent.—tb bank stopped pay-
ment. On the I.sth of that month a form of transfer bad
been sent in, but the bank officials declined to take any
steps to complete the transaction, and consequendy the
shares had never been transferred into the defendant's
name.

Several witnesses were called, who proved the purchase
of the shares for the defendant, and the various other
matters necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to recover.
Mr. Knowles, at the conclusion of the evidence, said
he did not intend to call any witnesses, but he wished to
submit some points of law for the consideration of his
lordship. He submitted that the plaintiffs were not en•
titled to recover on this ground—Mr. Aston, the plaintiff,
having instructions to purchase shares, went into the
market and purchased them of a jobber, and immediately
rendered an account to the defendant, in which be gave
the name of Mr. Ru_isell as the party selling the shares.
Tee defendant, therefore, had a right, to the implied war-
ranty of title in Mr. Russell ; but it now turned out that
Mr. Russell had no shares, and the name of another
seller was suhstituted. The defendant was entitled to
the warranty of title from,Mr. Russell, and, not having
it, was entitled to say that he had not the thing f.ac
which he had bargained. Another point was, that. e
transfer bad not been completed in accordance with the
10th and 11th articles in the company's charter ineor-
peration. By those articles it was necesso%y that the
consent of the directors should be obtained to all trans.
fens, and that not having been obtained this case the
transaction had not been completed, and the plaintiffs
were not entitled to recover.
Mr. Gibbon also objected that 'An defendaot had con-
tracted to buy certain shares in, the capital of the com•
pany, but at the time when th.ose shares were bought the
bank was insolvent and hat' no capital. Further, that,
by the custom of the St'eck Exchange, purchasers were
bdund to pay for shared upon delivery, and that delivery
was not complete until it had been ascertained that the
transfer would bet sanctioned by the directors. The
transaction had :lever reached that stage, and, therefore,
the liability to pay had not arisen.
Mr. JustifJe Wities said he should direct a verdict for
the plaint is for the amount claimed, 6531., subject to
the opinion of the full Court upon the questions of law.

CONSISTOB.Y COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
3L&GUIBE V. WILLIS AND OTHERS.

This was a suit to try the validity of the election nf
the Rev. Mr. Maguire to the incumbency of Sr. James's,
Cler,enwell. Appearance was entered to-Jay on the
part of the rev, gentleman, and time to plead was al-
lowed the opposite parties.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.

IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISE BANK-THE FIRST STEP IN THE

RIGHT DIRECTION.

Mr. Linklater, pursuant to notice. called on six of the
directors—Edward Esdaile (the governor), Mr. Stapleton
(deputy governor), Mr. Gillott, Mr. M`Leod, Mr. Vail-
lent, and Alderman Kennedy, to file a balance-sheet ten
days before the last examination meeting. The notice
Was given under the 7th and Bth Vic., cap. 111, sec. 12
The Court had held that the directors at the dissolution
were directors subsisting at the time of the bankruptcy
for all the purposes of the winding-up. He should have
been glad if be could have thrown the obligation on other
persons than the director, persons who had now retired
from the management, but the law wenld not permit
him to do so. In the notice which had been given the
itofirtehmeorbsatnhk,e examination of Mr. Paddison, the solicitor
Were directors v.ahs, riatnhneexbeactl:k sdhiesswoilnyged.thosTehegednirtelecmwelns
were pr, Bent with the exception of Mr. Stapleton, the
dtputy governor
bail betn
giver, • F.ur clear days' notice Or this motion
ton was
Stapleton had bee'
persomaind he had an affidavit that Mr. Stanle-
y served with the summons. Mr.
an active part in nthaedeputy-govornor, and having taken
rn anagement of the affairs of the
company he was one
e' the persons he proposed to call on to file a balanee-sbet
and had been a director . Mr. Esclaile was. the governor,
Was a
direr
eu(ce the. formation of the bank.
h,:: at the commencement, but
becoins a dieector until
Mr. Kennedy
resigue3, and did not
:nzea.director in the summer
April, 1854. Mr. ILLte
became
of 1353. Mr. Vai
'a a director in February,
present year, It was considered bearable 1856, and Mr. Gillott on the hit "
sable by the assig-
tee?
lec:e th e r directors;
of August in the
flees that Mr. Gillott should file a b
, ey were, in his
sheet, but Mr.
rendered, and
: Gillott was in a different position to th 0
he would only. be required to declare
the best accounts that could
opinion,
subscribe to those which ranged over the time he sat
at the board. Mr. Valliant came in after t
obtained their supplemental charter. Mr. M`Leeobeard
waga director in the summer of 1853, when Aldermen g. _a__*l
nedy was not a director, and, tcerefore, they had ea
the.
directors' to furnish the transactions v. ho had sat at the
board the whole period, and the governor and deputy
governorior form sake. He would now proceed to state
the time the accounts were required to extend over by
the casiznees.

Mr. Reed, who appeared for Alderman Kennedy and

Mr. Vaillant, said it would be much better in the first
instance to decide who should prepare the balance-sheet.
He was not instructed by Mr. Alderman Kennedy to
resist any application that that gentleman should be one
of the directors called upon to prepare a balance sheet
if the Court thought it necessary that he should do so.
Mr. Alderman Kennedy was a director in 1849, but in
January, 1850, he sent in his resignation as a director,
which at the end of a fortnight was accepted. At that
time Mr. Kennedy sold the 20 shares he possessed, and
his connection with the bank ceased until October or
November, 1854, when he was unfortunately induced
to purchase ten shares, and had ten new shares allotted
to him to qualify him for a director. In 1855, on his
appointment as sheriff, Mr. Kennedy wished again to
retire, but was unfortunately prevented.
Mr. Linklater.—There will be an obligation on the
directors to show the fallacy of the balance sheet which
was last presented to the public.
Mr. Reed.—Really, Mr. Linklater, you have no autho-
rity. No balance sheet is here.
Mr. Linklater.—Sometimes personal observations is
more than official records.

Mr. Reed submitted that as them were only eight di-
rectors, two should not be excluded ; and it would be
better if Mr. Linklater, instead of calling on six, called on
the whole bedy to prepare a balance-sheet. He did not
think favour should be shown one more than another.

Mr. Gillott— I am an honest tradesman, and know
nothing about it. I took my seat at the board on the sth
of August with Mr. Hurst and Mr. Bntt. We knew
nothing but what the manager told us. These accounts
would take me away from my business three months,
and I have my own accounts to attend to.

The Commissioner—This is not an ordinary case, a
proper manager should have kept the books.
Mr. Butt—The failure was enough to paralyse a man
a fortnight or three weeks. We had nothing to do with
the management, and to call on us to prepare a balance-
sheet I call it injustice.

The Commissioner concurred in Mr. Reed s proposition
and directed that the whole bo ly of directors should file
a balance-sheet.

Mr. Linklater said the charter of the bank was dated
the 6th September, 1849, and in October or November
it commenced operations. It was understood that at an
early period it was iu a state of insolvency. Unless
therefore the balance-sheet began in 1849, when the
trading commenced, he did not think the Court would
comply with the requirements of the act of parliament.
The act gave the Court power to decide on the causes of
the failure, and it Aouta have to do sole this case, where,
after 9 year.' trading, the debts ofthecrediters I-mounted
to 60,00/. He proposed the balance-sbeet should be pre-
pared in the form prescribed for limited liability com-
panies, which were in future to be wound up in this
court (section 12). The Court bad power also to order.
the directors to amend the balance-sheet from time to
time.

Mr. Reed observed he could not understand how the
Court could make Alderman Kennedy and Mr. Valliant
pledge themselves to a balance-sheet extending over the
whole period ; he could only say the form proposed was
that adopted by public companies at their yearly meet-
ings, and was wholly inapplicable. He quoted clause 72
of the act to show it was not a proper form—for instance,
there was one heading " cash and investment," which
was app icable to a company that was going on and not
that had stopped.
Mr. Mason, who appeared for three directors, said be
apprehended his clients would not be required to sub-
scribe to anything prior to their having a seat at the
board.

The Commissioner said they would have to state
nothing more than they were cogniant of. The form
would be, as near as possible, in conformity with the one
generally used in the court.
Mr. Reed, under section 12, asked for an allowance
for preparing the balance-sheet. The directors were
liable to the extent of every farthing of their property,
and it would be unfair to select eight gentlemen out of
280 or 300 shareholders and make them pay the costs
out of their own pocket. He was willing to accept the
nomination of any respectable accountant by the
assignees.

, Mr. Linklater objected that there were no funds in
hands. Thanks to his Mends at present this was a
barren estate. The proper course would be for the di-
rectors to file their balance-sheet, and then apply for an
allowance. He declined to nominate si met tvitant, as
the responsibility was thrown on the directors to file
their own balance-sheet ; otherwise they might go to an
en,rmous expense and arrive at no satisfactory result.
The Commissioner said the onus was thrown on the
directors to prepare their own accounts, and as, under
the circumstances, the assignees did not choose to ac-
quiesce in the suggestion of Mr. Reed, he should leave it
open to the directors to comply with the act of parlia-
ment. They might obtain what assistance was necessary,
and apply for an allowance hereafter.
After some further discussion, a formal adjournment
until Thursday took place, for the parties to settle the
terms of the order.