The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-08 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

On Saturday application was made for a sum-
mons against a share agent for detaining fifty
railway shares, on which 2Z 10s. deposit had been
made. The broker invited him to sell his shares,
saying he could get 2i premium for them, instead
of which he alleged he had sold them at l3i
premium, and neither money nor shares could be got
from him. Mr. Alderman Musgrove granted the sum-
mons, and said he should call in the City Solicitor at the
hearing, to see whether such agents were not liable to
be prosecuted for acting as brokers in the City of Lon-
don without giving securities for their fidelity, and being
sworn and appointed by the Court of Aldermen.
The Secretary to the Shrewsbury and Herefordshire
Railway Company appeared to answer the complaint of
Mr. John Finacan for refusing to deliver to him 25
shares, after paying the deposit-money.
Mr. Finacan stated that he purchased the letter of
allotment in July, with a guarantee from the seller, a
Mr. Sentzneck, that he would sign the deed. He paid
the deposit-money, and wrote to Sentzneck several
times, making appointment to attend and sign, but he
never came. Upon application at the office, he found
the letter had been allotted to Wm. Egerton Oldfield, of
Bishop's Castle, Salop, and he was required to produce
this person, who turned out to be unknown ; the address
was fictitious, and the company would neither give him
the scrip nor return the money till he produced Mr.
Oldfield.

The Secretary said, the person who claimed the shares,
or money, was of a different name to the person to whom
the shares were allotted, and they had a right to be pro-
tected from the money being claimed again by a second
party. If he would trace the party from whom the
letter was purchased, the company would be satisfied.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE said there was nothing that
reflected discredit on the company in this case. They
had a right to be guaranteed against paying the money
a second time, and they were entitled to all the assist-
ance that could be given by the complainant to trace the
party who bad imposed on the company. He discharged
the summons.

In a desultory conversation on the subject, the Alder •
man observed that he was not one of those who thought
that parties might lure the publio to buy shares at a pre-
mium, and afterwards turn upon them and say the corn-
pany is dissolved, and each of the shareholders may
receive back some portion of the deposit-money. There
were cases in which the public had a right to look for
something more from promoters who have amassed
large sums from such transactions.
An elderly gentleman, giving the name of Mr. Wil-
liam Gregory, then applied for a summons against the
promoters of the Direct Birmingham, Oxford, and
Brighton Railway. From a written statement which he
handed in, it appeared that he applied for twenty-five
shares in that company, which were granted. He paid
up the deposit, 21. 12s. 6d. per share, and was informed
that the Parliamentary deed would soon be ready for
signing, when he would get the scrip. The delay being
rather long, he came up to town from Chesterfield a few
days since, and was told that the deed was not fully
prepared. His patience was again tried for a con-
siderable period, and a few days since, on calling
at the offices of the company, he was told still
that the deed was not ready for signing, that
no scrip had been issued, in fact, the plans,
sections, &c., were far from completion, and that the
Company would not apply to Parliament in the ensuing
session. Thinking, therefore, that they had no right to
have taken the deposit, he applied for it in return, which
was refused, and he now wished that a summons might
be issued against the projectors of the line, for the re-
stitution of the money they had got from him.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE inquired how the deposit
was paid, and who was to be summoned. Applican
answered, by a cheque from his bankers in the country,
which passed through Smith, Payne, and Co.'s. He
wished to summon the chairman of the company, John
Blunt, Esq., who, from the prospectus, appeared to be a
director of the London Docks. _

Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE, after having a short con-
sultation with Mr. Teague, observed that that case was
very different to the previous one, and he thought the
magistrates could not interfere in the matter. The ap-
plication must therefore be dismissed.

ILFORD PETTY SESSIONS.

Before Captain DAVIS, Chairman, and a full Bench o'

Magistrates.

DARING BURGLARY AT DAGENHAM. —Joseph Walker
and William Walden, two agricultural labourers, were
charged with breaking into the house of a retired stock-
broker named Arnold, and stealing upwards of 85/. in
bank notes, 401. in gold, a silver watch with gold chain,
and other property.
Mr. B. M. Rawlings appeared in behalf of the accused
parties.
Sergeant Crawford, of the K division of the Metro-
politan police, stationed at Dagenham' stated that on
Wednesday morning, the 19th ult., having received
information that Mr. Arnold's house had been broken
open, he went there, and on going across a field
found an iron chest, which had been broken open, and a
quantity of paper lying about. By the side of the chest
Mr. Arnold's dog was lying dead. On going into Mr.
Arnold's house he found that the. pannel of the street-
door had been taken out, the pannel being perforated
with holes made by a gimlet, and broken in two.—
(It was here produced. The wood was upwards of two
inches in thickness.) The rooms were in great disorder,

and in one he found the two sticks produced. Near
the house he traced footmarks of two persons to the
corner of the field at the back of the house, then across
a ploughed and several other fields to the garden of the
house where the prisoners lived, at Chadwell-heath. He
went to the house and asked if they were at home, and
was told by Walker's wife that they had gone to Romford.
He went there, and found them outside the Fox and
Hounds public-house. On searching them he found on
Walker a knife and a sovereign, with some other articles,
and on the other prisoner a few half-pence. He took
them into custody, and on comparing their boots with
the footmarks in the fields, found them to correspond
exactly,
Inspector Richardson said that, having received infor-
mation of the robbery, he went to the prisoners' house,
opposite the mills, at Chadwell-heath, and found a knife,
a chisel, and two gimlets, the latter of which corre-
sponded with the holes in the door. He had no doubt
about an entrance having been effected by means of a
gimlet, the holes being afterwards cut into one another
by means of a knife.
Superintendent Colson, of the Essex constabulary,
gave similar evidence.
In answer to the Bench, Mr. Colson said, from the
tongue of the dog protruding a long distance out of his
mouth, he bad no doubt about his death having been
caused by poison.
The prisoners were fully committed for trial at the
next assizes for the county of Essex. As they left the
bar they most vehemently declared their innocence.
None of the missing property has yet been traced.
WHOLESALE ROBBERY ON THE THAMES JUNCTION
RAILWAY.—John Ainsworth and William Hickman, two
rough-looking labourers, residing at West Ham, were
charged with stealing a large quantity of lead under the
following singular circumstances:—
Thomas Forrester, police-constable, 29 K, stated that,
on Saturday week last, he received orders from his ser-
geant to watch the prisoner Ainsworth's house, and
continued to do so until the following Friday morning.
About six o'clock on that morning he saw the prisoner
Ainsworth, accompanied by Hickman, leave home and
proceed to Mr. C. W, Tanner's coal-wharf at Wost Ham
Abbey. They got upon one of the sheds and ripped off
a great quantity of lead from the gutter, which having
put into a bag they returned to Ainsworth's house.
Witness having obtained the assistance of some brother
constables, went into the house, when the prisons ran out
at the back-door and through the river. They were
pursued, and Ainsworth captured at that time. On
searching the house, he found a large quantity of tim-
ber and bricks, which had been identified by Mr. Darby.
the foreman of the Thames Junction Railway, as the
property of that Company.
Other evidence with respect to stealing the lead hav-
ing been gone into,
The CHAIRMAN inquired if any one was present to
prosecute the case of stealing the bricks and timber from
the railway company?
Sergeant Harrison, of the K division, said the company
did not wish to prosecute, as they thought the proaeeu-

tion for stealing the lead would be quite sufficient, and
save them a good deal of trouble.
The CHAIRMAN said it appeared to him that for a pub-
lic company refraining to prosecute in such a case as the
present was something like compounding a felony—it
was most improper.
Mr. Tanner said it was most unfair that he should be
put to all the trouble and expense in prosecuting in this
case, and the company not.
The CHAIRMAN—HOW can we reach these parties?
Mr. Clifton, the clerk to the bench—You can summon
them, and bind them over to prosecute.
The CHAIRMAN—I do not think I shall be doing my
duty unless we have the parties here.
After some further remarks, the prisoners were fully
committed to Newgate for trial, for stealing the lead, but
remanded for the attendance of the railway people, a
summons being issued against them for that purpose.