The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-29 00:00:00

LAW' INTELLIGEIVC.K.

LIBEL IN " THE TIMES."—An application,..on Friday,
for a rule, call upon Mr. William Harrison, the pub-
lisher of The Zinses 'to show cause why a criminal infor-
mation should not be filed agalrist him, for a likapublished
in that journal against the Ron. Mr. Scott7-and other
gentlemen convected with the South Western Railway
Company, was postponed till next term.
THE EASTEL.S\ AltcalrELA'Ao.—Judgment was given
on Tuesday in the Exchequer, Chamber onA the long-
pending case of the Queen v. the Eastern Aiehipelago
'Company. The present proceedings arose, primarily, from
a scire facias, hatted at the instance of Sir James Brooke,
suggesting that the conditions of the company's charter
had not been fulfilled. The jury found in favour of the
Crown, and the Company appeded to the Queents, Bench.
The judges here- had to decide- upon two cezestions :
whether the nornpayment of the !£50,000 within twelve
months, and the commencing of business before. that was
paid, were such a. breach of the, conditions as to entitle
the Crown to cancel the charter ;.: and .vhetherthe charter
could be annulled, by scire Arias. Lord Campbell and
Justice Wightman idecided in fiivour 'of the Crown, but
Justices Coleridge and Erie held i a different opinion.
Judgment was entered for the Crowns but a writ of error
was brought, on which judgment was now ttv be given.
The Lord Chief Justice of Common: Pleas, Justices Wil-
liams, Talfourd, and Cresswell, and the Chief Baron, with
Barons Alderson Platt, and Martin,. were of opinion that
the judgment entered in the Queen's Bench was correct ;
that the Crown Lad the power to annul the cliarter upon
a breach of the conditions ; and that any subject of the
realm might proceed .by scire (.acids; the prerogative of
the Crown being;- held for the public benefit Mr. Baron
Parke was the only dissentient from, this opinion ; and
judgment was therefore entered for the Crown,
CRIMINAL LIFORMATION.—Inn, the, Bail Court, on
Thursday, befove Mr. Justice Crompton, Sir F. Thesiger
said he had to move fora rule to show caumewhy a criminal
information should not be filed against the publisher of the
Morning Advertiser newspaper, ftfr a libel upon Mr.W. K.
Gardner, late Comptroller of the •Cuatoms at the port of Li-
verpool. The: libel arose out of theproseeution of the
Customs against the great dock; ieteresta. Mr. Gardner
was at the time the C,omptrollerof the• Customs at the port
of Liverpool. He was summoned; to. Leaden, and he was
employed to assist the solicitors to.the prosecution, but he
did not originate them and did not receive any reward,
either directly or indirectly-, for his services. He was
therefore much astonished and hurt to find that on the
28th of October an article appeared. hie the Morning Ad-.
vertiser, generally upon theaoard: of Customs, but reflect-.
ing in a vary serious manner • upon Mr. Gardner. The.
learned council read the paragraph, which alleged that the,
comptroller of one of themorthern ports had brought fort.
ward false charges in theCustome prosecutions for his own,
sordid purposes. The affidavit, set forth, stated that Mr..
Gardner-was the person. alluded to by the newspaper. He.
(Sir F..Thesiger) could not- imagine anything more reja,.
chevioue or more likely to. prejudice the character of 'an
officer whose service& had been beneficial to the country.
—Rua' granted.
ENTRAORDINART CASE.—In the Bail Court on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and. Thursday, a case Wilbraham v.
Bickley, occupied theswhole of these days, and excited un-
usual interest. Thenction was to recover the amount of
a bill of the 22d of May, 1852, for £92, drawn by the de-
fendant, and accepted by one Fell, and endorsed: by the
defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaad, that he
had only endorsed it to enable the plaintiff to. obtain the
money from Fell. under his bankruptcy. It appeared that
the plaintiff is. a gumnaker, carrying on business in the
Strand, and the. defendant is an attorney, having chambers
adjoining the- 'Temple, and acting as the attorney for the
plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's statement, the de-
fendant raliPd upon him in June, 1852, and asked him to
discount this bill, and he gave him £BO,, and subsequenty
£lO. On. the day it became due the• plaintiff asked the
defendant to present the bill for him„ andsin the evening
he said he had presented it, but it was not paid ; but he
' added, "It is all right, old fellow, Iwill get you the money.
Fell has plenty of property in Ireland." Some time after
he told the plaintiff that they mild get the money directly
if they struck a docket against Fell, and the plaintiff gave
the defendant £lO to take the requisite proceedings. On
the part of the defendant it was said that the statement
of the plaintiff was untrue;. that the defendant had been
in the habit of lending the plaintiff money, and, as re-
garded this bill, that the defendant had endorsed it merely
that the money might be obtained from Fell; and, as re-
garded all the other hilja, they were given expressly, for
the accommodation of ie plaintiff. On Thursday Mr.
Justice Crompton, in summing up, said he thought that
the jury would agree with the learned counsel and himself,
that on one side or the other most deliberate perjury must
have been committed. The only question for them to
decide was—to which side they gave credence. The jury
retired for three hours, and, on returning, found a verdict
for the plaintiff for £129 7s. ld.
A CASE OP SHARES.—III the Court of Chancery, on
Thursday, the case ex parte Nielson in re Edmond came
on before the Lords Justices of Appeal. This case came
before the court in a somewhat irregular manner, the
order brought under discussion having been pronounced
by Lord Justice Knight Bruce, sitting in bankruptcy as
Vice• Chancellor, so long ago as August, 1850, at which
time the learned judge gave the parties leave to submit a
case for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer. The facts
of the case were these :—ln June, 1845, a prospectus was
issued for the formation of a joint-stock insurance office at
Liverpool, called "The Royal Insurance Company," with
a capital of £2,000,000, in 100,000 shares of £2O each;
and it was completely registered. In this association Mr.
Edmond became the allottee of 200 shares. He paid all
the calls, but did not execute the deed of settlement, and
was not a registered shareholder as required by the 26th
section of the Joint Stock Companies' Registration Act,
7th and Bth Victoria, chap. 110. These shares were sold
for Mr. Edmond by Messrs. D. and J. B. Nielson, his
sharebrokers, at Liverpool, and the transfers were executed
but not registered. Mr. Edmond became bankrupt, and
Mr. Commissioner Skirrow decided that the bankrupt, not
being a registered shareholder, the sale was of no avail,
e brokers
appealedms si e
r to,
but
and that the shares formed part of his estate.
Cha
that a case
neello r, who agreed
might
b withe submitted
suthe com-
missioner, the
Vice-Chancellor,
leave
for the opinion of a court of law. Thu argument§ laud