The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-10 00:00:00

ME SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 10, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Beforo the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices.)
RE OVEREND, GURNEY, AND CO. (LIMITED)-EX PARTE

GRISSELL-JUDGMENT.

Their lordships gave judgment in this case this morn-
ing.
This was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor
Kindersley. It appeared that Mr. Grissell is a shareholder
in the limited company of 0 verend, Gurney, and Co.,
which had been ordered to be voluntarily wound up under
the inspection of this court, and he was therefore a contri-
butory under the winding-up. He was, however, also a
depositor in the banking company to the extent of £16,000.
He is a holder of 80 shares of £5O each, on which he has
paid £l5. Another call of £lO has been made, and a divi-
dend is shortly about to be paid. Mr. Grissell applied to
the official liquidator to allow the amount of calls he had
paid to be set-off against his deposit, and that
he should bo paid a dividend as a creditor. This being
refused an application was made to the Vice-Chancellor
that the liquidator should be ordered to pay the said
dividend, and the question being whether on account of
his being a contributory shareholder Mr. Grissell was not
entitled to any rights as a creditor until all the creditors
net contributors hit(' been paid in full, his honour was of
opinion that the principles of the ordinary law of partner-
ship applied to this case, and that Mr. Grissell could not
prove his debt as a depositor in competition with creditors
not shareholders, that he was not entitled to any dividend
till all other creditors had been paid in full, and refused
the application. The present appeal was then brought,
and it was urged for the appellant that the consequences
of this decision would be that the whole benefit of the
peculiar incorporation of limited liability companies would
be taken away from the shareholders, that the limit of their
liability was practically enlarged, and that they were
practically placed in the situation, besides being a limited
company, of being also a guaranteed association.
Their lordships confirmed the decision of Vice-Chan-
cellor Kindersley, and ordered the costs of the application
to be paid out of the estate.

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND PUBLIC COMPANIES.-IMPORT•

ANT POINT.- THE MERCANTILE LIGHTERAGE COMPANY

(LIMITED) V. EARLE AND Co.
This was an action to recover damages alleged to have
been sustained by negligent navigation of defendants' ship.
Mr. Farnfield appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. Bernard
being counsel for the defendants.
Mr. Bernard said he had to raise a point before he could
allow plaintiff's attorney to proceed with the case. He had
to ask Mr. Farnfield if he was in a position to show that
he was appointed under the seal of the company to appear
for it on this occasion ?
His Honour—Well, Mr. Farnfield, can you show this ?
Mr. Fainfield—l cannot.
His Honour—Then the case must be adjourned.
Mr. Bernard—This case involves a most important point.
His Honour said defendant must have his costs.

LODGERS AND LANDLORDS -A NICE QT:ESTION-BUTLER V,

PINKERTON.

This was an action to recover the value of certain cloth-
ing stolen from the plaintiff while lodging in the defen-
dant's house, defendant being described as a lodging-house-
keeper.
Plaintiff deposed that while he was lodging at defendant's
house some thief got in and stole a quantity of clothes.
Defendant urged that he could not be held to be liable,
as he was not responsible for any loss that occurred from

thieves.
His Honour told plaintiff that he ought to have kept his
door locked, so that thieves could not get in.
Plaintiff said that it was the duty of a lodging-house-
keeper to protect his guests, and endeavoured to apply the
Innkeepers' Act to this case, but his Honour ruled that the
Innkeepers' Act did not at all apply, and that it was the
duty of a visitor at a lodging-house to protect his own
property.
Verdict for defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ROBBERY BY A DRAPER'S ASSISTANT.—WiIIiam Henry
Clarke, assistant to Mr. Edward Lloyd, draper, of No.
110, Tottenham-court-road, was charged before Mr. Tyr-
whitt with robbing his employer of several pairs of kid

gloves.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the prisoner.
The prosecutor said—ln consequence of having missed
several articles from the stock, and knowing that an article
of a particular pattern must have been taken by some one
in the house, I went to the police-station on Wednesday
to request that a detective might be sent to my house.
The officer came, but too late, the prisoner having when
he arrived left the house. I had touched the prisoner as he
was going out, and felt some property about him. Last
night, as the prisoner was leaving, the officer being at the
door, I called him back and took him into a private room,
and in the presence of the officer said, "I think you have
got some property 'about you belonging to me." The pri-
soner replied, " Why do you think that? I have not.
Search me." I said, "I will take you at your word," and
searched him, and took from his breast pocket six pairs of
kid gloves. I then asked him if he had any more property
about him, and the prisoner took from his trowsers pocket
six more pairs of gloves and gave them to me. All the
gloves bear my private marks on them. I then gave the
prisoner, who had only been in my employ three weeks,
into custody. lam sorry for the prisoner on account of
his family.
In answer to Mr. Lewis, the prosecutor said he went
with the officer to prisoner's lodgings, but found none of
his property there.
Fisher, 32 E, corroborated a portion of the prosecutor's
evidence, and said he found 7s. on the prisoner.
Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded the prisoner, who has a wife
and young family, for a week.