The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

CUTION.

THE OMNIBUS COMPANY PROSE.

Do you know if any other of the shareholders in
this company have had any dividends ?
Mr. Paynter—How can he possibly know that ?
Mr. Stammers—Were you not attending a meet-
ing of the Saloon Omnibus Company for the pur-
pose of borrowing money on debentures P—l was.
When was that ?—At the first meeting that eras
called.

Was it this year or last year ?—Last year, I be-
lieve. It was last year.
Were you not a dissentient on the occasion of
your being at the meeting ?—I was not a dimen-
tient till I received some information about the
object of obtaining them.
Was not the Saloon Omnibus Company at t hat
time in a state of insolvency P—l knew nothing
about the affairs of the company except what I
was told by Mr. Hawkins.
From what you did know were you not aware. 1
that the Saloon Omnibus Company was insolvent ?
—I was not.

Did you become aware at any time that the
company was insolvent ?—Only through being told,
Are you aware of it now P—l am not.
Mr. Edwards here interposed. He said that he
did not wish to put an extreme limit to a cro ss-
examination ; but he submitted that this cross-
examination had nothing to do with the charge of
conspiracy. He thought that his learned. friend
was not justified in questioning the solvency. or
insolvency of a company on a charge of conspiracy.
A company was placed in a similar position to a
private individual. His learned friend hadno right
to question the solvency of the company, and he
submitted that the course of examination pursued
ought not to be persisted in.

Mr. Paynter Observed that he did not we what
bearing the cross-examination had on the case.
Mr. Stammers, having remarked that the inter-
ruption of the learned counsel was too late, as he
had done with the cross-examination upon the
question of insolvency, said to the witness—You
stated in your last examination that Hawkins told
you that he wanted to file a bill, and that he did
not wish his name to appear ?
Witness—That was so.
Do you remember going to Mr. Norton, the so-
licitor, on the subject of the proposed bill ?--Yes, I
went to the office of Mr. Norton.
Was not the opinion of Mr. Wordsworth on the
subject of the contents of the bill read over to you°
—I cannot say.
Was not some paper read over to you ?—Yes.
Look at that (producing a paper). Is that tb.e
paper P—l believe it is.

Did you sign any paper at Mr. Norton's P—l &Id.
Did not Mr. Hawkins also sign the paper in your
vesence P—Yes. He placed his signature under

Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to
file the bill on his and your behalf P—Hawkins
all the business.
Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to
file the bill on his and your behalf P
Mr. Paynter—The bill will show that.
Mr. Stammers—Will you swear that the bill ir is
not the joint bill of you and Mr. Hawkins ?
Witness—l did not do it. Mr. Hawkins an.d
myself were plaintiffs in the case, and I made am
affidavit with Hawkins in support of the statements
in the bill.
A long discussion here took place in reference to.
evidence being received upon affidavit from another
court, and
Mr. Edwards contended that the only evidence
which ought to be produced was what was in refe-
rence to the evidence given on a former occasion,
in order to show whether there was any contradic-
tion
to his former evidence.
The cross-examination of the witnesses was then
resumed by Mr. Stammers.
Mr. Stammers—Have you ever asserted that the
London General Omnibus Company had adopted,
means to destroy the Saloon Company ?
Witness—l deny it.
By Mr. Stammers—My mother made an affidavit;
in the bill, and she signed it. She is not able to
read. The contents were read to her.
Have you not expressed yourself dissatisfied as
to the steps taken to borrow money on debentures ?
—I have been dissatisfied.
Did you not bring your mother up from the
country to make an affidavit P—Mr. Hawkins
wished me to fetch her.
Mr. Sleigh here interfered. He observed that
on the last occasion it was suggested that the
cross-examination should, be reserved till such time
as the counsel for the company might see what
evidence was brought forward, upon which they
could cross-examine the witnesses. At present he
thought they had nothing to examine.
Mr. Edwards said that the course recommended
by Mr. Sleigh was one that was never pressed
before. If any cross-examination should be pro-
ceeded with it ought to be at the time of the
examination of the witnesses.
Mr. Stammers—Do you not know that between
the months of April and September, 1857, the di-
rectors of the Saloon Omnibus Company contracted
debts to the amount of £3,557.
Mr. Edwards—What has that to do with the
charge ? I cannot sec what the debts of the Metro-
politan Saloon Company have to do with a charge
of conspiracy.
Mr. Stammers repeated the question, in answer
to which the witness replied, I do not.
Mr. Stammers—How was it that you became a
witness in this case ?
Witness—A friend or two of mine told me that
I was being led astray, and advised me not to have
anything to do with Hawkins.
Did you not go to the Saloon Company and offer
to give evidence P—l saw the secretary of the com-
pany and told him what I knew of the proceedings
of the company.
Did you make arrangements with the object of
becoming a witness P—l made no arrangements at
all

Who was the friend you allude to P—l am not,
obliged to tell you.
Mr. Paynter—.You had better say.

The proceedings in this important case of the
Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company versus the
London General Omnibus Company were resumed
yesterday at the Westminster Police-court, before
Mr. Paynter, and occupied between three and four
hours. The court was, as before, densely crowded.
Since the -last examination summonses have been
issued charging nine persons with being concerned
in the conspiracy.
Mr. Edwards begged, before proceeding to the
business of the day, to make one observation. He
had stated in the conclusion of his opening address
that one of the means resorted to on the other side
to ruin the company was garbled reports of meet-
ings, to which his friend, Mr. Sleigh, had made a
very proper reply in defence of the press ; at that
time there was a gentleman, named Ross, summoned
as a defendant, and as it might seem that those
remarks reflected upon Mr. Ross, against whom that
summons had been withdrawn, he begged now to
state that those garbled accounts were not his
reports, and as he should be very sorry that any
gentleman should labour under such imputation, he
begged to exonerate Mr. Ross. Further, he had
to remark that there being two gentlemen of the
name of Lloyd Jones in London, the wrong one had
been summoned on the last occasion, an error which
had since been corrected.
In order fairly to show the points of the cross-
examination of the witness Bryon, hereafter given,
it is necessary, before proceeding with yester-
day's evidence, to briefly refer to his former testi-
mony, the substance of which is as follows :—He
was a journeyman coach-builder, formerly in the
service of the defendant Ayshford, and while there
some omnibuses were made for the London Gene-
ral Omnibus Company by Hawkins's directions as
much as possible to resemble those of the Metro-
politan Saloon Omnibus Company. Bryon was a
poor man, and Hawkins inquired what it would
take to set him up in business. On his replying
£l5O in a small way, Hawkins induced him, upon
promise of a reward of £l5O, to assist him in filing
bills in the Court of Chancery, stating at the time
that it would cost them nothing. If the bill suc-
ceeded Bryon was to have £5O before he left the
court, and £lOO afterwards. Hawkins did not wish
his own name to appear, and said it would be better
for Bryon to lend his as an independent shareholder
of the Saloon Company; and that if the bill suc-
ceeded it would have the effect of crushing the
company. Bryon was also induced to go with
Hawkins to solicit the signatures of the share-
holders of the company to a petition praying that
the Board of Trade would send some one to exa-
mine the accounts of the Saloon Company. Another
part of Bryon's instructions was that he was to
attend meetings of the Saloon Company and disturb
them all he could. This he did. He and others
each time previously met at a public-house opposite,
and supper was paid for by Hawkins and Lloyd
Jones. In course of conversation with Bryon,
Hawkins frequently said the Saloon Company had
not a farthing in their coffers. He was working;
day and night, and getting papers cut and dried
for them. He would sell the coat off his back but
that he would crush them.
Bryon was now called, and cross-examined by
Mr. Stammers, as follows:
Mr. Stammers—You know that you had 10 shares
in the company ?
Witness—Yes, sir.
You are aware, I believe, that your mother is a
shareholder in the company ?—Yes. She has also
10 shares, and the shares have been paid up.
Have you had any dividend upon them P—None,
sir.