The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-17 00:00:00

as to leave an imputation of a serious kind upon the motives
by which they were influenced?
The Lone MAYOR said his interference would entirely de-
pend upon the particular circumstances of the complaint.
Mr. Baylis stated that having seen an advertisement in the
newspapers announcing a railroad called " The Brighton and
Cheltenham Direct Railway," he made a written application
for shares, which was answered by an allotment. In the
allotment letter he was informed that he was to pay into a
banking-house the sum of 2/. 2s. per share ; that he was then
to receive a receipt, and that, upon
.signing OA deed he
should be put in possession of the scrip. He :fad complied
with all the forms, according to the written directions, but
when he had signed the deed, and thus made himself respon-
sible as a shareholder in the concern, instead of the scrip a
sort of acknowledgment that he had performed the necessary
ratification was put into his hands, rnd he was informed that
on a future day the scrip would Lie ready for delivery. As
he was anxious that the Company should perform their part
of the duty prescribed to all, lie called again and again for
the promised scrip, but all his attempts proved unavailing.
At last he was given to understand that on the preceding
day the managers had determined to proceed no further in
the business, and the speculation was to be abandoned. He
thus remained in state quo, without the money he had paid
upon the shares, amounting to 631., without the scrip, and
merely holding the bit of paper acknowledging that he had
signed the deed.
The LORD MAYOR—YOII would not, I suppose, have signed
the deed, if you did not at once expect to receive the scrip?
Mr. Baylis—Certainly not. I would not have performed any
of the acts required by the letter of allotment if I had sup-
posed there would have been any delay.
The LORD MAYOR-It would have been an awkward thing
if you had sold the shares at a premium, and been obliged to
deliver them.—Mr. Baylis said he did not speculate upon a
premium in applying for the shares, and that he merely
wished to have them, or the money he bad paid as the deposit.
The LORD MAYoR, after consulting with Mr. Goodman, the
chief clerk, said he could not see how he could render any
assistance in such a case.

Mr. Baylis observed that he thought the interference of a
magistrate might be sanctioned by the circumstances, as the
proceedings appeared to him to have all the essentials of the
offence of obtaining money under false pretences.
The LORD MAYOR said, that the false pretences, in order
to constitute an offence in law, must apply to an existing
fact ; but if in this case there were any false pretences, it
referred to a future fact, if he might use the language. He
thought that a court of law, or the Court of Chancery, would
be the place in which reparation could be obtained. The
alternative was a disagreeable one, and there would be, by
and by, in all probability, abundant cases for the occupation
of the time of the lawyers, as well as the inferior functionaries
of the profession. Perhaps the complaint just made would
tend to an adjustment, especially as there were very respect-

able names in this list of managers.
Mr. Baylis expressed his apprehension that there existed
no chance of restitution, but expressed his thankfulness to
the Lord Mayor, who added to the information already given
to Mr. Baylis, the comfortable intelligence, that having
signed the deed, he was liable, as a partner, to be called upor
for the payment necessarily incurred in forming and conduct•
ing the Company.