The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-13 00:00:00

This was an action of trespass. Mr. Chambers,
Q.C., Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Wiles, were for the
plaintiff; and Serjeant Channell for the defendant.
The declaration alleged that the plaintiff had been
duly elected a director of the London and Brighton
Railway, and that the defendant, who is the chairman
of that company, unlawfully expelled him frOm the
board room and assaulted him. The defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff had not been duly elected as
a director, and that he was therefore justified in pre-
venting him from being present at their meeting.
Mr. CHAMBERS said that the question which the
jury were now about to inquire into was one of a very
important and interesting character to all persons con-
nected with railways. The plaintiff in this action was
a well known eminent engineer, and he was the ori-
ginal constructor of the Brighton Railway, and had
been for many years connected with it as a shareholder,
and at the time of this prosecution he held debentures
of the company to the amount of 10,0001., and conso-
lidated stock to the extent of 25,0001. Having, there-
fore, so large an interest in the undertaking, he was
anxious to become a director, in order that he might in
that capacity attend to his own interest, and, of
course, at the same time, to that of the other share-
holders, and the case on the part of the plaintiff was,
that he had been legally appointed a director, and that
the defendant, who was the chairman of the board,
had improperly prevented him from fulfilling the
duties of his office. The action was brought in the
form of an assault, but the jury would understand
that there was no imputation of any personal violence
being actually exercised, but in reality the charge
was a mere point of form, and the real question in-
volved in the inquiry was, whether the plaintiff had
been legally appointed a director or not. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that,
at the latter end of last year, two of the directors died,
and the chairman exercised the power given him by
the Act of Parliament, of filling up the vacancies that
were thus created, by appointing two gentlemen in
their places, namely, Mr: Beaumont Hankey and Mr.
Lushington, M.P. The first of these- appointments
.created some dissatisfaction among the shareholders ;
for although no doubt Mr. Hankey was a most re-
spectable gentleman, yet he was only twenty-one
years of age, and the shareholders considered
that he could not possess sufficient experience to
qualify him to act for the advantage of their
undertaking in the capacity of director. In January
of the present year, in accordance with the pro-
visions of the company's Act, three of the direc-
tors—Messrs. Schuster, Nicks, and Lushington—re-
tired from the direction, but offered themselves for
re-election, and on the 29th of January the election
came on. The plaintiff on that occasion offered him-
self as a candidate, and, on the show of hands being
taken for the four gentlemen, the chairman said that
the numbers were so equal for Mr. Schuster and the
plaintiff that he could not decide which had the ma-
jority, and he called for a second show, which he der
cided to be in favour of Mr. Schuster. A poll was
demanded on behalf of Mr. Rastrick, and the polling
took place immediately, and closed at six o'clock in
the evening, and it then appeared that Mr. Schuster
had the majority. The plaintiff claimed to have been
also elected, inasmuch as no one appeared to have
polled for the other two candidates; but the chairman
insisted that those two gentlemen had been elected by
the show of hands, and he declared Messrs. Schuster,
Nicks, and Lushington to be duly elected. The
question, therefore, was, whether this was a
legal proceeding ; and he should contend
that, inasmuch as a general poll had been
demanded, and the
majority of votes was given
to the plaintiff and Mr. Schuster, that the former was
legally chosen as a director, and that the chairman
had no power to declare the two other gentlemen to
have been elected by the show of hands. The plaintiff,
believing that he had been properly elected, ex-
pressed his intention to assert his right to take a seat
v
could
u dnoto aprer
at the board of directors, and at the meeting that took
on
of
t h
be [e4ii
being of
civilly illy t March,h
told he
that proceeded to the
be bd
room for that purpose, and he was sorry to say, that
mitted to remain there, or to take any part in the
place
instead
proceedings, which was all that would
have been
necessary to raise the question of right, he was stopped
by the porters with some rudeness, and pushed
back and the door shut in his face. eslie e should
these facts, and the jury would
then say, proay, under theve
direction of his Lordship, whether this was not an
illegal act on the part of the defendant.
Mr. W. Shaw said that he ' was a contractor for
public works, and was also a shareholder in the
Brighton Railway to the extent of 9,0001. or 10,000/.
He was present at a meeting of the shareholders at
the Bridge-house Hotel on the 29th of January last,
for the purpose of appointing three directors. The
defendant was present as chairman of the meeting.
Some observations were made by the shareholders re-
lative to Mr. Hankey having been appointed a direc-
tor, and it was stated that he Was a mere boy, and
entirely unacquainted with railway matters. Mr.
Schuster, Mr. Nicks, and Mr. Lushington, the three
directors who had retired, but offered themselves for
re-election, were then proposed, and when this had
been done a shareholder named Flood proposed Mr.
Rastrick, and he was seconded by another share-
holder, and his name was put to the meeting, and a
show of hands called for for all the candidates. The
chairman said that Messrs. Nicks and Lushington
had a majority, but he was doubtful as regardedc Mr.
Schuster and Mr. Rastrick, and he called for a second
show of hands, and then decided that the majority
was in favour of the former gentleman. The meet-
ing considered that Mr. Rastrick had the majority,
and a poll was demanded, and the chairman upon this
observed that they might go to the poll if they pleased,
but he had proxies enough in his pocket to decide the
election. The polling was continued in an adjoining
room until six o'clock at night, when the shareholders
again returned to the room where the meeting had
been held, and the chairman declared the number of
votes for Mr. Schuster to be 18,000 and for Mr. Ras-
trick 800 or 900, and that the former had been duly
elected.
Mr. CHAMBERS here called for the production of the
paper giving the number of votes for the purpose of
showing that the plaintiff and Mr. Schuster were the
only candidates for whom any votes were taken.
Sergeant CHANNELL said he had not got the paper,
but he would admit that the fact was as stated by his
Learned Friend. No votes were given to the other
d
gentlemen, because they did not go to the poll.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he should contend that all the
four candidates went to the poll, and that as no votes
(me two gentlemen, the plain-
had been given for these
tiff and Mr. Schuster were the candidates actually
elected.
to further questions put
The witness, in answer by
Mr. Chambers, said that he understood that all the
four candidates went to the poll. The plaintiff claimed
to have been elected, and called the attention of the
chairman to the fact that no votes had been given to
Mr. Nicks or Mr. Lushington.
ITNELL-Mr. Nicks
By Sergeant CHA and Mr.
firstcandidates
Lushington were'the were pro-
posed, And then hir. Schuster and oar. Eastgick, The